BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Sessional Returns

Ordered,
	That there be laid before this House Returns for Session 2013–14 of information and statistics relating to:
	(1) Business of the House
	(2) Closure of Debate, Proposal of Question and Allocation of Time (including Programme Motions)
	(3) Sittings of the House
	(4) Private Bills and Private Business
	(5) Public Bills
	(6) Delegated Legislation and Legislative Reform Orders
	(7) European Legislation, etc
	(8) Grand Committees
	(9) Panel of Chairs
	(10) Select Committees.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Careers Guidance

Ian Mearns: What steps his Department is taking to support schools in the provision of career guidance.

Matthew Hancock: From September, new statutory guidance for schools will strengthen the requirements for schools to build relationships with employers to inspire and mentor pupils and deliver careers advice.

Ian Mearns: The fact that careers advice has been completely delegated to schools is leading to growing evidence of a postcode lottery in provision. Unfortunately, Ofsted appear to be inspecting that aspect of provision with a light touch. That is leading to lightweight and inappropriate advice, lacking in impartiality and independence, with many youngsters ending up on courses that will not properly help them fulfil their ambitions and, in some areas, to increased drop-out rates. How will the Minister ensure that young people have their needs met through access to good quality, independent and impartial careers advice and guidance?

Matthew Hancock: It is true that in the past careers advice was not particularly well delivered as a policy, but the new statutory guidance, which will be in place from September, is all about strengthening the relationship with people in careers they are passionate about. Information is widely available: the issue is inspiration—

Ian Mearns: indicated dissent.

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the evidence around the country is that more and more schools are getting in employers and those who have careers to offer, and lifting pupils’ eyes to the horizon.

Steven Baker: What did the Wolf report, which was welcomed by the Opposition, have to say about work-related learning?

Matthew Hancock: Work-related learning is an attempt to pretend that young people can be given a feel of what it is like to be in the workplace without putting them in the workplace. We care about high-quality work experience, because all the evidence shows that the more work experience young people do, the more likely they are to get a job.

Meg Hillier: Does the Minister agree that learning to network and to make connections is also important? He did agree to come to Hackney to see some of the best networking and careers advice, and I hope that he will honour that commitment.

Matthew Hancock: I am keen to come to Hackney. We have been working on some dates, but we will renew our effort. I agree with the hon. Lady, not least because those who do not have natural networks through their family links often find it harder to break into high-quality jobs, and networking and mentoring can do an enormous amount to break down those barriers and improve social mobility.

Fairer Funding for Schools

Robin Walker: When he plans to publish the results of the recent consultation on fairer funding for schools; and if he will make a statement.

David Laws: Our consultation on fairer schools funding closed on 30 April. We are currently analysing the responses and will publish our final response next month.

Robin Walker: The Government have been right to commit to delivering fairer funding and I welcome the first small steps that have been taken. Schools in Worcestershire tell me that they are facing major challenges from increases in national insurance and pension costs. May I press the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns of the F40 authorities, which want to see fairer funding sooner?

David Laws: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the strong lead that he has taken in arguing the case for fairer funding, which is long overdue. As he has acknowledged, schools in his area will gain to the tune
	of some £5 million from the proposals that we made a couple of months ago. I repeat the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made on previous occasions: we are committed not just to this first big step towards fairer funding, but to a national fair funding formula, which should have been introduced many years ago but which the last Labour Government did nothing to address.

Stephen Twigg: Head teachers in my constituency are concerned about their budgets for this year, and they tell me that the big effect will come with the Government’s changes to sixth-form funding. Will he look again at those changes?

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have protected schools funding in the existing Parliament, and we have introduced a pupil premium to make sure that youngsters in more disadvantaged areas are also assisted. I agree with him that in the future we must make sure that education funding is as protected as possible across the system, and he will be aware of the announcement that the Deputy Prime Minister made on behalf of my party today. It is now up to other parties to make similar commitments.

Guy Opperman: The move towards fairer funding in Northumberland has been welcomed by all my teachers and those in the F40 who are likewise affected. Will the Minister remind the individual councils of the F40 local authorities that all the schools in previously underfunded local authority areas should benefit, not just some chosen few?

David Laws: My hon. Friend is right that we want to see the money go from local authorities to schools. He will be aware that in his area the proposals that we consulted on involve a significant increase of some 6.4%, which is more than £10 million more for local schools. We want that money to go right through to the front line.

Frank Field: When will the Minister agree with the wish of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) to have a much broader review of funding? Children attending reception class in Wandsworth have almost twice the amount of money of children attending in Birkenhead. Neither of those two authorities was in the review. Given that the Government have been in power for four years, that national review is long overdue.

David Laws: I will not say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that, given that his party was in power for much longer than that, this could have been addressed by him. I will, however, accept the serious point he makes that we need not only to move to a national fair funding formula when we know the long-term spending plans, but that it will make sense for the next Government to consider all the different forms of deprivation funding, including a prior attainment area-based funding, to make sure that there is a coherent whole. I am very proud of what we have done on the pupil premium in this Parliament, but we ought to look in the round in the next Parliament.

Nicholas Dakin: On fairer funding, is it acceptable that, according to a London Economics report today, academies have approximately £1,600 more to spend per sixth-form student than sixth-form colleges?

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman should know that, as part of the Government’s reforms to school funding, we are making sure there is consistent and fair funding across the system. Where there is not, we have been converging funding to ensure institutions are appropriately and fairly funded.

Children’s Social Workers (Training)

Emma Lewell-Buck: What assessment he has made of the recommendations of Sir Martin Narey’s report “Making the Education of Social Workers Consistently Effective”, published in January 2014, on the training of children’s social workers.

Edward Timpson: We welcome Sir Martin Narey’s report, and agree with both his analysis and approach to securing improvement. We are already putting in place some of his recommendations: the chief social worker, Isabelle Trowler, is leading work to define the knowledge and skills that children and family social workers need to practise effectively; and I announced last week that we are supporting a fourth cohort of the successful Step Up to Social Work programme.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I thank the Minister for his response. Sir Martin Narey’s report rightly recognises the importance of quality social work placements. Is the Minister therefore concerned by reports that trainee social workers are instead being used to plug gaps left by the Government’s cuts to children’s services and provide cover for fully qualified colleagues? Does he agree that that is neither good for social workers’ development, nor for at-risk children?

Edward Timpson: I am always concerned when newly qualified social workers find themselves in a difficult professional position, whereby they feel stretched by the case they are having to deal with. That is why we have provided a large amount of money to ensure that their first year is supported by the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment programme, and why we are making sure that the £239 million we have already invested in social work training will be supplemented by the work of Sir Martin Narey and the chief social worker.

Stephen McCabe: We have had the reviews of Professor David Croisdale-Appleby and Sir Martin Narey, and we await the outsourcing report of Professor Le Grand. Do the Government think they know now what needs to be done to improve social work? If they do, when will they share their insight? Will they consult the profession on any intended changes, or simply seek to impose them?

Edward Timpson: All the work the hon. Gentleman describes has one pure motive: to raise the quality and status of social work right across the country. Part of that is making sure we take the profession with us. When I spoke to the British Association of Social Workers at its conference last week, I made it as clear as I could be that whatever we do we will consult, review and ensure that any changes we make lead to the improvements that are our mission from the very start.

Free Schools

Rob Wilson: What recent assessment he has made of demand for free schools.

Michael Gove: Free schools are proving tremendously popular. Approximately 24,000 pupils already attend free schools and many of those schools are already oversubscribed. Free schools are also more likely to be rated “good” or “outstanding” than other schools inspected under Ofsted’s new framework.

Rob Wilson: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am a keen supporter of free schools and I am delighted to hear about the success they are enjoying. However, it is also important that the Education Funding Agency finds the right sites for them, which is challenging in urban areas such as Reading and, in particular, Caversham. Will he therefore agree to meet with me and representatives from my local community to discuss the location of the Heights primary school? Further, will he agree that the community should have full transparency of information and related issues from the local education authority and the EFA?

Michael Gove: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and to do everything I can to ensure both that the need for a new school is met and that the concerns across the community that he highlights are properly addressed.

Diana Johnson: Can the Secretary of State explain exactly what “security grounds” means when used to turn down a free school application?

Michael Gove: All free school applications go through a rigorous process that is policed by the Department’s due diligence and counter-extremism unit and will ensure that any inappropriate application that is put forward is not accepted.

Alok Sharma: The West Reading Education Network parents’ group is seeking approval to open a single academy trust secondary school next September. The same parents’ group set up the outstanding All Saints junior free school. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is exactly the type of excellent parent-led initiative that everyone in the House should be backing? It certainly enjoys cross-party support in Reading.

Michael Gove: I absolutely do agree. It is important to bear in mind that the All Saints school in Reading was outstanding in every category when it was inspected by Ofsted. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to ensure that the quality of education that Reading parents enjoy continues to improve.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State agree that what we need in education is a balance between free schools and academies and a role, as there surely must be, for local democracy? Is this the resistance that the Prime Minister has to the expansion of the free schools programme: that there is not enough local democracy in it?

Michael Gove: I think it is important that there is a balance—I find myself increasingly in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. There is a role for greater autonomy—exercised by principals, driven by a sense of moral purpose—to improve education. It is also the case that there is a role for local authorities as well, not least when it comes to safeguarding children at risk.

David Ward: Does the Secretary of State regret the weak scrutiny—and, indeed, evaluation—of applications for free schools that has led to what must be, for him personally, some extremely embarrassing examples of poor educational provision?

Michael Gove: I do not mind embarrassment personally—[Interruption.] Just as well, some might say. What I do worry about is if any school, anywhere in the country, is not providing the highest quality education for children. One of the striking things about the free schools programme is that not only are schools more likely to be “good” or “outstanding”, but when schools have underperformed, we have moved rapidly to close them or replace the leadership of schools that have not been doing a good enough job.

Kevin Brennan: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the architect of the free schools policy, Dominic Cummings, was in the Department last week, despite the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) saying in a written parliamentary answer to me that there was no record of his visit? Could that be because he wrote last week, in typically bad taste, that he always signs into Government Departments, including No. 10, under the name of Osama bin Laden? What on earth is the Secretary of State doing still relying on this man’s advice?

Michael Gove: The architect of the free schools programme was actually Andrew Adonis, not Dominic Cummings, as he himself has said. Free schools were a Labour invention—a point that was repeated by the former Prime Minister Tony Blair when speaking to The Times today. As for the hon. Gentleman’s points about former special advisers, all sorts of people from time to time seek to visit the Department for Education to exchange ideas with old friends and colleagues.

Links between Employers and Schools and FE Colleges

Julie Elliott: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen relationships between local employers, schools and further education colleges.

Mary Glindon: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen relationships between local employers, schools and further education colleges.

Matthew Hancock: We are in the middle of a big culture change, with more and more employers—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the Minister gets ahead of himself, with characteristic enthusiasm and gusto, I think he will want to confirm to the House his intended grouping of Questions 6 and 8, which I think his briefing folder will tell him.

Matthew Hancock: I would be absolutely delighted to do so.
	As I was saying, more and more employers are engaging with schools and colleges to inspire young people. As discussed earlier, we have strengthened statutory guidance for schools so that those relationships can help to inspire students into their careers.

Julie Elliott: I thank the Minister for his answer, but a recent report from the university of Bath showed that 60% of school and college governors said that employers were not proactive enough about becoming school governors and thereby taking a formal role in education. Given the importance of employers in improving the employability of our young people, what are the Government going to do about that?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely—strengthening the role of employers in governance and on careers advice, and inspiring pupils are vital, and a whole programme of work is under way to encourage more employers. One thing we can do is make it easier and bring about a brokerage so that employers who want to get involved can do so without too much bureaucracy and with the support of their local schools.

Mary Glindon: Churchill community college has been judged outstanding by Ofsted, and the inspector said that the school prepares young people well for their future. Will the Minister say how his Department will get employers directly involved in curriculum support so that young people at Churchill—and elsewhere—can capitalise on their excellent education and be successful in the world of work?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely. One example is the introduction of tech levels for those between 16 and 19 who want to go into vocational education, which will get them into a job. These qualifications have to be signed off as valuable by an employer before we will accept them as tech levels, thus demonstrating the line of sight from work that exists in all educational vocational education.

Caroline Dinenage: As the Minister said, it is vital for schools to forge strong links with businesses to ensure that school leavers are not just numerate and literate, but employable. Does he agree that organisations such as the Education Business Partnership can often play a significant role in building these links?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I do. There is a huge array of organisations. Only this morning, I was launching Careers Lab with Steve Holliday, who runs National Grid. That is another organisation, like the one my hon. Friend mentioned, that can help to broker links between employers and education, which are so important after the systems were separated for far too long.

Stephen Mosley: Following on from that, one way to enthuse young people in engineering is to give them first-hand experience and use role models. What is the Minister doing specifically to encourage engineering companies to go into schools and enthuse young people?

Matthew Hancock: I am delighted to say that there are over 20,000 ambassadors from engineering who go into schools under the STEMNET—the science, technology, engineering and mathematics network—programme. It is just one example of the organisations that can help to bring employment and education together.

Funding Formula for Schools

David Mowat: What steps he is taking to adopt a revised funding formula for schools.

David Laws: Our proposal to allocate £350 million to the least fairly funded local areas in 2015-16 is the biggest step towards fairer schools funding for a decade. This puts us in a much better position to introduce a national fair funding formula when multi-year spending plans are available.

David Mowat: The Minister may be aware that Warrington is ranked 137th for funding out of 152 authorities. As a comparator, Westminster, which is ranked 10th, receives £3,000—60% extra—more per child each year than Warrington. It was therefore disappointing that in this new allocation, Westminster received a big uplift and Warrington received nothing—perpetuating that differential, which is really unacceptable. Will the Minister explain the logic behind that, and does he agree that we need to move to a national formula very quickly indeed?

David Laws: I would make two points. First, what we sought to do in the announcement of a couple of months ago was address the issues not just of low funding, but of unfair funding. It is still possible for some parts of the country that are not the lowest funded to be underfunded, as we saw in the announcement. As for comparing Westminster with Warrington, although traditionally thought of as an affluent area, Westminster has had something like 50% of its children entitled to free school meals over the last six years, so it benefits, quite rightly, from high levels of disadvantage funding. Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend in that his points make the case for moving on from this allocation to a full national fair funding formula in the next Parliament, to which both our parties are committed.

Bill Esterson: The Education Select Committee heard evidence that secondary schools in areas that will not receive extra money under changes to the funding settlement will face a £350,000 a year shortfall due to increasing costs. Meanwhile, £400 million of basic need money has been used on free schools. Instead of spending it on them, would not that basic need money have been better spent on the schools now facing a shortfall in their basic needs?

David Laws: I do not accept the premise of the question. Many schools whose areas are not benefiting from the uplift are in areas with high levels of disadvantage and deprivation that have benefited enormously from the pupil premium that we have introduced. As for basic need, we have allocated considerably more than the last Government, which is why we are able to have a very ambitious programme for new schools and extensions across the country.

Anne McIntosh: North Yorkshire is a very sparsely populated rural county, and is one of the 40 least well funded. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem of funding small schools in rural areas of that kind—which includes the problem of sixth-form funds—and will he address it?

David Laws: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As she knows, north Yorkshire is one of the areas that will gain from the measures that we proposed a couple of months ago. It was set to gain by £7.2 million under the proposals on which we have consulted. The sparsity issue is also extremely important in areas such as north Yorkshire, and we have therefore introduced a sparsity factor to allow local authorities to protect schools in areas where children would otherwise have to travel an unacceptable distance.

Kerry McCarthy: As was pointed out earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), it is the sixth-form sector that is really being hit by funding cuts. Is the Minister aware of the impact survey conducted by the Sixth Form Colleges Association, which was published today? I hear reports that officials have been asked to prepare further cuts, which will be announced in September. May I urge the Minister to think again? The sector simply cannot take any more cuts.

David Laws: I understand the concerns of the 16 to 19 sector. Ministers are very alive to those concerns, and we will consider them carefully before we set our final spending plans for 2015-16. I do not know whether the Labour party has made any commitments on school funding into the next Parliament, but I suggest that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends make the same commitment that the Deputy Prime Minister has made on behalf of my party today.

School Leavers

Graham Stuart: What steps he is taking to obtain data from HM Revenue and Customs to improve the development of destination measures for school leavers.

Matthew Hancock: Data from HMRC can potentially help to show where young people go from educational institutions. We are consulting on how destination data should be used in the league tables, and we know that some of our changes will require changes to legislation.

Graham Stuart: During the last Session, an attempt at change was made in a private Member’s Bill. I hope that the Minister is telling us today that he will make it a Government priority to strengthen destination data, as the Select Committee recommended, so that we can give schools an incentive to take account of not just short-term exam results, but the long-term interests of the child.

Matthew Hancock: The use of destination data in league tables is one of the biggest changes that the education reforms will bring about. It will require legislative change. The clauses that were proposed during the last Session are about to find their way into legislation, which will be published soon.

Mr Speaker: I call Lisa Nandy.

Lisa Nandy: indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: I thought that the hon. Lady was seeking to catch my eye. Never mind; there will be other opportunities I call Margot James.

Margot James: In my borough of Dudley, young people leave school at 16 to pursue A-levels and other forms of post-16 education at local colleges. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a system of destination measures that will enable us to track the progress of students back to the school that they attended before reaching the age of 16?

Matthew Hancock: Holding schools and colleges to account for their exam results is important, but it is equally important to be clear about where young people end up. That, I hope, will give schools an incentive to provide a broader education, emphasising knowledge, skills and behaviour, so that school leavers will be able to do what everyone wants them to do, and fulfil their potential.

Admission Procedures (Academies and Free Schools)

Graeme Morrice: What steps he is taking to ensure that admissions processes in free schools and academies are fair.

Michael Gove: Free schools and academies must comply with the school admissions code. The criteria that are used to decide the allocation of school places must be “fair, clear and objective”. Anyone who considers that a school’s admission arrangements do not comply with the code can make an objection to the schools adjudicator.

Graeme Morrice: What steps will the Secretary of State take to strengthen the code and the role of the adjudicator, as proposed by Labour?

Michael Gove: The adjudicator is already capable of making binding determinations, and has already been clear about the schools—whether they are academies, free schools or other schools—that have not subscribed to the requirements for fair admissions. Let me add, in relation to the broader question of admissions in general, that it is this coalition Government who have ensured that schools can give preference to students from poorer backgrounds through the pupil premium, and have used the admissions code to advance social justice, which the last Government signally failed to do.

Priority School Building Programme

Jim Cunningham: What provision has been made to fund the furnishing of new school buildings built under the Priority School Building programme.

David Laws: The Priority School Building programme provides funding for fixed furniture and equipment. Where a school is increasing in size, the PSBP also provides funding for loose furniture and equipment, such as tables and chairs.

Jim Cunningham: A school in my constituency, Ernesford grange community academy, has just had a new school building built under the PSBP. However, the Education Funding Agency has informed it that there is no funding to cover furniture for the new building. That is presenting a serious problem for the school—and, I am sure, for many other schools. Will the Government try to find funding to help buy desks and chairs for the new builds, or meet me to discuss the situation?

David Laws: Of course I will look into the issue or meet the hon. Gentleman. Where funding is needed to fix furniture and equipment, we provide that centrally. The hon. Gentleman has three PSBP projects in his constituency. All of them are going to be receiving some funding for fixed equipment—over £1 million in total. Where there is existing equipment that can sensibly be reused in the new buildings, we ask schools to do that, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that is posing problems, I will be happy to look into the detailed circumstances.

Crispin Blunt: This morning I visited the Holmesdale community infant school in Reigate, a very successful and popular school which is seeing a significant number of new places being provided under the new schools programme. However, with the doubling in school numbers over the past decade, there is chaos outside; there are enormous problems with traffic, which requires changes to the road structure. Is it possible to arrange some form of funding that covers the entire scheme of both setting up new school places and supporting them effectively?

David Laws: Usually it is appropriate for the local authority to fund transport improvements from its transport budget, but if my hon. Friend sends me the details of the case that he raises, I will look into it carefully.

Alan Beith: Although the Government’s commitment to rebuild the Duchess’s community high school in Alnwick is very welcome, the problem of furnishing a new-build school is arising there. Will the Minister discuss with me how we can meet that problem?

David Laws: I will be happy to have those discussions with my right hon. Friend. I am sure he accepts that where there is furniture and equipment that can sensibly be reused, it should be—it would be ridiculous in these times to waste good furniture and equipment—but where there is a need for support, we will certainly consider that.

Apprenticeships

Jason McCartney: What progress his Department has made on increasing the number and quality of apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds.

Matthew Hancock: We are on track to deliver 2 million apprenticeships over this Parliament. We will continue to focus on raising quality, insisting that all apprenticeships are jobs, have a minimum duration of a year, include on-the-job training and meet the needs of employers.
	As a result, the number of full apprenticeships—those with a planned duration of a year or more—for 16 to 18-year-olds has doubled.

Jason McCartney: Since 2010, an average of 433 workplaces in the Colne and Holme valleys and Lindley employ apprentices, many of which are supported by the excellent local Kirklees college. What are the Minister and his Department doing to support our wonderful further education colleges in helping to deliver these fantastic apprenticeships?

Matthew Hancock: More than ever, companies are involved in delivering apprentices and having apprentices. Colleges are increasingly providing the training for apprenticeships, but it is also important that we raise quality by ensuring that employers write the training that is required for young people to learn the skills necessary to get a good job.

Andrew Gwynne: Sadly, some young people and their parents still see apprenticeships very much as an easy option, so what are the Government doing to better sell the benefits of apprenticeships, and to increase the number of higher and advanced-level apprenticeships, as an alternative pathway to that provided by degrees?

Matthew Hancock: Our vision is that when young people leave school or college, they have the opportunity to go to university or into a high-quality apprenticeship. We have a programme of reform to increase the quality of apprenticeships, including offering more English and maths and a minimum duration. Undoubtedly, there is more to do to persuade people that apprenticeships are of high quality and that apprenticeships can get them anywhere.

Nick de Bois: For too long, young people have been encouraged to take vocational qualifications that are below par. Does the Minister agree that, to rectify that, we must focus on the quality of apprenticeships and vocational training, because that is exactly what employers are desperate for?

Matthew Hancock: I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend. In fact, we have defunded more than 4,000 qualifications for under-18-year-olds in order to concentrate scarce resources on the qualifications that are valuable. Within apprenticeships, all the evidence shows that training while in work increases young people’s life chances, because it gives them the skills, the knowledge and the behaviour needed to get a good start in a career.

Valerie Vaz: Will the Minister say what support he will give care leavers to access high-quality apprenticeships?

Matthew Hancock: Through care to work, we have a specific programme to support care leavers to get into apprenticeships. Apprenticeships are part of our programme of ensuring that every young person in our country has the opportunity to reach their potential.

Bob Russell: If the Minister is looking for an example of best practice, I draw his attention to the scheme launched in Colchester earlier this year to recruit 100 apprentices in 100 days. Through
	a partnership of the Colchester Institute, the
	Colchester Daily Gazette
	, and the National Apprenticeship Service, 160 apprentices were recruited.

Matthew Hancock: I pay tribute to the Colchester Institute and the Colchester Daily Gazette. Many local papers get involved in promoting apprenticeships, because they are part of a culture change in our country. When young people leave school or college they can go to university or into an apprenticeship, both of which can help them reach their potential.

Rushanara Ali: Small and medium-sized businesses provide almost 60% of all private sector jobs, but they are saying that the Government’s reforms on apprenticeship funding will make it much harder to offer up-front training and create opportunities. With only 8% of all employers in the UK currently offering apprenticeships, when will the Government admit that their rhetoric does not match the reality on apprenticeships?

Matthew Hancock: I am slightly surprised to hear that question. In the hon. Lady’s own constituency, the number of apprentices over the past few years has increased by 85%, giving more chances to people. Recently, representatives of half a million employers, mostly small employers, wrote in to our consultation to support the direction of travel, which is supported by the shadow Chancellor.

Child Care

Alex Cunningham: How many disadvantaged two-year-olds received the 15-hour free entitlement to child care in the latest period for which figures are available?

Elizabeth Truss: In May 2014, 116,000 two-year-olds were in early learning places, which is 89% of the 130,000 allocation. That means that more two-year-olds are getting a good start in life, preventing a gap emerging with their wealthier peers when they start school.

Alex Cunningham: I do not think that the Sutton Trust feels that provision is that good or comprehensive. Oxford university research shows that the Government are failing to provide sufficient good-quality places for children already covered, and that they should get that right before expanding the scheme. Will the Minister accept its advice, or will she just push ahead with poor-quality provision, which will do our children little if any good?

Elizabeth Truss: Well, 90% of those two-year-olds are in good or outstanding places. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that, in June, very high quality places opened in his own constituency of Stockton at Tilery primary school. We are making it much easier for schools to offer those places to two-year-olds, which typically have teacher-led provision.

Simon Wright: The two-year-old offer is strongly welcomed by many families in my constituency, and there are around 3,600 two-year-olds in Norfolk eligible for that support. Will the Minister
	confirm that all local authorities have the name and address data from the Department for Work and Pensions so that they can contact eligible families to encourage them to take up their entitlement, just as Norfolk county council has done?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right that the local authorities have that data from the DWP. Furthermore, they have a role in promoting high-quality places. For example, we are giving school nurseries, through the small business, enterprise and employment Bill, the ability to offer places to two-year-olds. Local authorities have the ability to encourage their local schools to offer those places.

Heidi Alexander: New analysis released by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) today shows that two thirds of councils do not have access to good-quality places for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. I asked the Minister about this in Westminster Hall in March, but we know that some families and children are still missing out. What guarantee will the Minister give me that all two-year-olds who are entitled to a good- quality place in Lewisham and across the whole of England this September have access to them?

Elizabeth Truss: As I mentioned, local authorities have a role in encouraging schools to offer places. We know that more than 30% of early education places are in schools for three and four-year-olds, but not yet for two-year olds. That is why we are working with local authorities such as Lewisham, which we have given part of an £8 million grant, to make sure that schools are opening from 8 am to 6 pm and offering provision for two-year-olds.

Lucy Powell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) has said, too many of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds are not in high-quality provision. In addition, the freedom of information request that I released today shows that nearly half of councils lack sufficient places to meet the extension of free child care provision for two-year-olds in September 2014. That is a shortfall of 44,000 places for this year. Added to the shortfall that the Minister has just announced, that makes a shortfall of 60,000 places in the Government’s flagship two-year-old offer. What is she going to do about that?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Lady should be aware that there are 300,000 available places across the country, and that it is the role of local authorities to make sure that they are open for two-year-olds. She might want to listen to comments made by the former children’s Minister, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), about the previous Labour Government’s role:
	“The sensible policy direction would have been to locate more and more of our childcare offer in schools rather than build other buildings.”
	This Government are doing what the previous Government did not, by enabling schools to offer those places. Very few school nurseries are currently open between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm. Why does the hon. Lady not
	work with local authorities to help them make that happen, rather than complaining about their failure to act?

Numbers Count Programme

Duncan Hames: What assessment he has made of the work in primary schools of the Numbers Count programme.

Elizabeth Truss: I am in favour of any intervention that improves numeracy. Improving children’s numeracy is vital for life chances. OECD research shows that an adult with strong numeracy skills is three times more likely to earn good wages and be in good health. That is why we are raising expectations in maths right through the age range.

Duncan Hames: This area is vital, and I was impressed with the Numbers Count classes being provided at Staverton primary school in my constituency, which I visited recently. Those classes, it was feared, would be lost across the country under the comprehensive spending review. Is it not the case that only the pupil premium ensures that even in traditionally underfunded local authorities—areas such as Wiltshire—children are getting the dedicated, personalised interventions that they need at school?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are giving head teachers the power to decide which programmes are most useful for their students. That is why we are establishing 30 maths hubs across the country to provide advice and expertise and to look at top-performing places such as Shanghai and Singapore, where students are three years ahead of their British peers in maths by the age of 15.

Chi Onwurah: Maths is an absolutely essential skill in today’s society. Does the Minister agree with me that we need qualified, professional maths teachers to inspire children with an understanding of, and a love and enthusiasm for, maths? Is she proud that thanks to this Government, an A-level student may be better qualified in maths than his or her teacher?

Elizabeth Truss: I agree with the need for very good teachers in maths, which is why we offer the highest levels of bursaries and scholarships in the subject. We have also set up a new programme of maths and physics chairs, sponsored by organisations such as Samsung and GlaxoSmithKline. I can report that a high number of people with PhDs in maths are already applying for the programme, and they will be in our schools from September.

Absenteeism in Schools

Sheryll Murray: What steps he has taken to reduce absenteeism in schools.

David Laws: We have strengthened the rules on pupil absence and published clearer advice to schools. School attendance has improved significantly, with 7.7 million fewer school days lost in 2012-13 compared with 2009-10.

Sheryll Murray: I have been approached by many parents in my constituency who work in the tourism industry and simply cannot afford to take holidays during the busiest time, school holidays. What can be done to help these small business owners take holidays with their families without fearing punishment or hurting their children’s education?

David Laws: I know that this is a real issue in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend. Indeed, last year about a third of all children in Cornwall’s primary schools missed school for a term-time holiday, a figure higher than the national figure for primary schools, which is about 20%. That is clearly not acceptable. I would say two things to my hon. Friend. First, head teachers retain the discretion to grant leave in exceptional circumstances. Secondly, and more significantly as regards the cases she raises, we are deregulating so that all schools control their own term dates from 2015. That might give schools in her area greater flexibility to make a judgment about when to have their holidays and about what the right time might be for them.

Primary School Places

Steve Brine: What steps his Department has taken to increase the number of primary school places in a) Winchester constituency and b) England.

David Laws: During this Parliament, the Department has allocated more than £5 billion in basic need funding to help local authorities in England create the additional places that will be needed.

Steve Brine: I have campaigned throughout this Parliament to secure new primary places for my constituents. We now have a combination of additional places at existing schools and brand new provision at the excellent new Westgate all-through school, which is the first in Hampshire. The Government should be very proud of it. Does the Minister acknowledge that Hampshire, like so many other areas, is using the additional funding he mentioned not to fund an ideological whim but to do the basics and secure new primary school places for families who need them?

David Laws: I agree with my hon. Friend, who will be interested to know that the allocation of money to Hampshire for basic need has almost quadrupled between the time of the previous Labour Government and the present coalition Government. We have allocated £88.9 million to basic need in Hampshire between 2011 and 2015; that compares with just £23 million over a comparable four-year period in the previous Parliament.

Educational Attainment

Philip Hollobone: What change there has been in educational attainment in a) Kettering constituency, b) Northamptonshire and c) England since May 2010.

David Laws: Attainment has risen in all the areas mentioned from 2010 to 2013: in Kettering from 55.4% to 57%, in Northamptonshire from 51.9% to 58.1%, and in England as a whole from 55.3% to 60.8%.

Philip Hollobone: Northamptonshire is one of the fastest growing counties in the country and Kettering is one of the fastest growing parts of Northamptonshire. What special extra help is Her Majesty’s Government giving to boost educational attainment chances in constituencies such as Kettering that have a high population growth rate?

David Laws: I agree that there are challenges in Kettering and Northamptonshire, including from the rising pupil population. In that part of the world not only are we delivering the pupil premium and the additional interventions to support better school leadership, but we have almost doubled the allocation of money for new places for basic need from £29 million in the last Parliament to more than £55 million in this Parliament.

Topical Questions

Julian Huppert: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: At the weekend, Her Majesty the Queen was pleased to confer knighthoods and damehoods on a number of outstanding teachers. May I add my congratulations to those of others to Andrew Carter, Barry Day, John Dunford, Anthony Seldon, Nicola Nelson-Taylor and Erica Pienaar? There are many outstanding teachers in our schools today and we should celebrate their work. I am particularly pleased to acknowledge that there are teachers from the recently judged by Ofsted “outstanding” Warmsworth primary in Doncaster in the Gallery today, and I congratulate Mrs Marshall on her superb Ofsted.

Julian Huppert: The Secretary of State is right that there are many excellent teachers. Is he aware of the evidence that has been produced by the “too much too soon” campaign about play-based learning? What assessment has he made of the benefits of a sustained period of creative play-based learning before children are exposed to more formal learning environments?

Michael Gove: Early years practitioners know that we need both structured play and appropriate introduction at the right time to more formal methods of learning to get the most out of every child. We are very fortunate that we have not just a revised early years foundation stage but more and more talented people teaching in the early years.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is of course disorderly to refer to the Gallery, but I feel sure that the occupants of it will be revelling in the praise that the Secretary of State has generously conferred on them. On this occasion, his disorderly conduct is readily excused, but only on this occasion.

Tristram Hunt: I fully associate myself with such disorderly conduct in the House and congratulate those inspiring school and college leaders who have rightly been recognised by Her Majesty the Queen. Teaching is a moral mission, and it should be celebrated as such.
	In 2010, the Department for Education was warned of threats to schools in Birmingham, but for four years,
	on the Secretary of State’s watch, his Department failed to act. The chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, is now urging the Government to provide greater public assurance that all schools in a locality, regardless of their status, will discharge the full range of their responsibilities. When will the Secretary of State accept that micro-managing schools from behind a desk in Whitehall does not work, and that we need a proper system of independent, local accountability?

Michael Gove: I suspect that that question will be shown not only on BBC Parliament but on UKTV’s Gold channel, because it is a magnificent repeat. The hon. Gentleman asked precisely that question in his speech last week. The truth is that we took action to deal with extremism in schools, which the last Government never did. We have also taken action to introduce no-notice inspections, which will ensure that Her Majesty’s chief inspector has the powers, which he was denied under the last Government, to deal with the problems that started under the last Government.

Tristram Hunt: The reason I am asking the question again is that we are still searching for an answer. Labour’s answer is absolutely clear: we need directors of school standards, independent of local authorities, to ensure a robust system of local oversight. The Secretary of State’s policy involves more Whitehall centralism, more unqualified teachers, and less collaboration and accountability. Is it not the case that even those on the Government Benches now realise that Birmingham has shown that his school model is bust?

Michael Gove: I have to say that the hon. Gentleman did rather better at reading out his question this time than he did last week, so I suppose it really was worth that exercise in déjà vu all over again. The truth is that Labour’s policy is opaque and unclear. At different times, the hon. Gentleman has been in favour of free schools and greater autonomy, and against them. He is currently in favour of abolishing the national curriculum in all schools, but David Blunkett, the man who advises him on schools policy, is in favour of imposing it in all schools. As I have said before: inconsistency, thy name is Tristram.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State was referring to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). I feel sure that he was.

Duncan Hames: Last week, the Secretary of State described the safety of children as central to his Department’s mission. In March, prompted by information arising from the police investigation into Jimmy Savile, he ordered investigations into 21 schools and care homes. How will he co-ordinate that work with similar investigations in the NHS and report the findings to the House?

Edward Timpson: Clearly we remain committed to doing everything we can to learn from whatever happened in those cases. In his written ministerial statement in March, the Secretary of State set out the process for doing that. My Department will be working closely
	with the Department of Health, in conjunction with the work being done by Kate Lampard and the work that Lucy Scott-Moncrieff will undertake to provide independent oversight of the process. Discussions between the Departments have taken place, and we hope to be able to say more about the outcome of both the investigations in the autumn.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister tell us how many schools are being built as a result of his programme, and how many have had their conditions improved?

David Laws: Yes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are building, rebuilding and upgrading more than 900 schools during the course of this Parliament. We have also recently announced a priority school building programme to rebuild many of the schools that are in the worst condition, including many that were not even on the list for Building Schools for the Future.

Annette Brooke: We are in the third year of phonics tests for six-year-olds, and I understand that the tests have shown an improvement in decoding skills. What action will the Minister take to ensure that we are stimulating the enjoyment of reading?

Elizabeth Truss: Last year’s results from the progress in international reading literacy study—PIRLS—showed that the number of children in this country who are reading for enjoyment is going up; it has resumed considerably over the past few years. We have fantastic schemes to encourage students to read, such as the summer reading challenge. This year’s challenge is the mythical maze, which will challenge children to find their way around a labyrinth and introduce them to fantastical creatures from the world of legend and mythology.

Karen Buck: Further to his somewhat unilluminating response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), will the Secretary of State tell the House—and if necessary write to me—on how many occasions his former special adviser Dominic Cummings has visited the Department for Education since he left the Secretary of State’s employment, and whom he met on each occasion?

Michael Gove: I will consider carefully, as ever, the hon. Lady’s question, but it is instructive that with many educational challenges in her constituency, she chooses once again to disappear down the rabbit hole of Whitehall process, rather than seeking to stand up for her constituents.

David Ruffley: The Secretary of State will recall from our meetings in the Department that there is concern about the funding of the transition from three-tier to two-tier education, particularly in my constituency. Will he confirm that under this Government, funding for extra primary school places is nearly double what it was under the previous Labour Government?

Michael Gove: I absolutely confirm that increase in funding, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has been as tenacious as a Doberman Pinscher with a bone between its jaws in ensuring that children in Bury St Edmunds and across Suffolk get the support they need financially and educationally.

Andrew McDonald: Ambitious about Autism recently reported that some 28,000 children, or more, have been informally and illegally excluded from schools. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what action he will take to protect some of our most vulnerable children?

Michael Gove: Children on the autistic spectrum often present with types of behaviour that can in certain circumstances lead to disciplinary and behavioural problems. The answer, of course, is to ensure that we are in a position to identify the needs of those children earlier. Later today the House will debate some of the consequences of legislation that we have introduced to improve identification and support of all children with special educational needs.

Gordon Birtwistle: My constituent Jack Entwistle is a lively 11-year-old who suffers from autism. He is being denied education suitable for his needs by Lancashire country council, and unfortunately he is not alone. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to try to end the discrimination that Jack is suffering from the education department at Lancashire county council?

Michael Gove: I will ensure that a Minister meets my hon. Friend, whom I thank for his dogged and determined work on behalf of his constituents. We have both had our frustrations with Lancashire county council over the years, but any vulnerable child in Burnley has a highly effective champion in my hon. Friend.

Lisa Nandy: Will the Secretary of State tell the House exactly when Dominic Cummings ceased to hold the pass that allowed him access to the Department for Education?

Michael Gove: I think it was Jimmy Carter who was once attacked by critics for worrying about exactly who was using the tennis courts at the White House. I am not responsible for the allocation of passes to the Department for Education, but I am always happy to welcome constructive critics such as the hon. Lady for an enjoyable discussion over a cup of tea whenever she wants to come to the Department.

Nigel Adams: The rise in the number of apprenticeships in my constituency has contributed to a 52% fall in youth unemployment since the last election. Will the Minister join me in congratulating local employers who are taking those youngsters on, and colleges such as Selby college and York college whose work in that area is doing so much to provide life chances and career prospects for those young people?

Matthew Hancock: The increase in apprenticeships across the country is helping to tackle youth unemployment. There has been a sharp fall in youth unemployment in many parts of the country—including that of my hon. Friend—
	with a fall of more than 50% over the past year, which is seriously good news. There are many contributory factors to that, not least colleges that work extremely hard to ensure that young people get jobs, as well as employers who create that prosperity, thanks to our long-term economic plan.

Jenny Chapman: What will the Government do about the fact that there are more than 4,000 infant school children in classes of more than 30 in the north-east and North Yorkshire?

David Laws: That is precisely why the Government have doubled the allocation of money for basic need, by complete contrast with the previous Government who cut the number of places in primary schools despite the boom in the birth rate.

Richard Fuller: Thinking that it faces too many bureaucratic hurdles, the Local Government Association is looking for more powers to interfere in free schools and academies. All too often, local authorities are the bureaucratic hurdles, holding back inspired head teachers, inspirational boards of governors, and parents who want a better future for their children. Will my right hon. Friend resist these efforts by local government to take back controls?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is a man after my own heart. There are some outstanding local councils, not least, for example, in the north-east and Darlington. They do a great job in supporting head teachers to raise standards and exercise a greater degree of autonomy. Sadly, however, there are those who want the creeping tendrils of bureaucracy once again to choke the delicate flower of freedom, and I am afraid that the Opposition Front Bench is a particularly rank unweeded garden when it comes to nurturing those tendrils.

Alex Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State expect multi-academy trusts, which are significantly changing the way in which their services are delivered to their academies, fully to consult their head teachers and local governors before these changes are set in train?

Michael Gove: I would expect all multi-academy trusts to do everything possible to ensure that the local community and those involved in the delivery of services were appropriately consulted. I look forward to chatting to the hon. Gentleman when the Education Committee next meets so that he can expand on that point.

Robert Halfon: The number of apprentices in Harlow has increased by more than 80% during the past year. Will the Minister look to increase the prestige of apprentices and create a royal society of apprentices, which would improve their status and encourage more people to do apprenticeships?

Matthew Hancock: I am delighted that, like many other places in the country, the number of apprentices in Harlow is increasing, and the number of employers taking on apprentices is increasing. During the last year, the increase in those applying for apprenticeships through the apprenticeship vacancy website rose by 50% to 1.5 million, not all of them in Harlow, but many. The culture of apprenticeships is on the rise again in Britain.

Barry Sheerman: Has the Secretary of State noticed the groundswell of opposition to the proposal that the Government might privatise child protection services in local authorities? Has he clearly got the message from people as diverse as Professor Eileen Munro and Caitlin Moran in The Times that that is an unacceptable place for privatisation?

Michael Gove: I have enormous respect for both Eileen Munro and Caitlin Moran in The Times, and I have been influenced by both of them in different ways. I should stress that we are not proposing the handing over of services that are there to protect vulnerable children to people who are after a fast buck. We have an innovation programme that has been endorsed by many leading organisations, charities and third sector organisations that work with the most vulnerable children. The problem at the moment is that far too many local authorities either require improvement or are very poor in the way in which they look after these vulnerable children. We need to work with external organisations to ensure that those children have the best possible future.

Prison Overcrowding

Sadiq Khan: (Urgent Question): To ask the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the prison overcrowding crisis.

Chris Grayling: Let me start by challenging the premise of the question posed by the right hon. Gentleman. We do not have a prison overcrowding crisis. Today’s prison population is 85,359, against a total useable operational capacity of 86,421, which means we have more than 1,000 spare places across the prison estate.
	By next April, we will also have opened an additional 2,000 places. That includes four new house blocks, which will start to open from the autumn. We also have a number of additional reserve capabilities to cope with unexpected pressures. At the time of the election next year, we will have more adult male prison places than we inherited in May 2010, despite having to deal with the financial challenges that the last Government left behind.
	Since last September the prison population has started rising again. This has happened for a number of reasons, including the significant increase in the number of convictions for historic sex abuse. These are people who committed appalling crimes and probably thought they had got away with it. I am delighted to find the space for them behind bars.
	As that increase has been greater than expected, I have agreed to make some reserve capacity available to ensure that we retain a sufficient margin between the number of places occupied and the total capacity of the system until the new prison buildings come on stream later this year. That means in reality that in a number of public and private prisons a few more prisoners will have to share a cell for a few weeks. We might not need those places, but I would rather they were available in case we did need them.
	I am also taking steps to address what I believe is a weakness in our prison system: the fact that we have no access to the kind of temporary or agency staff routinely found in our health and education systems. I am establishing a reserve capability among former staff to give us the flexibility to adapt to short-term changes of population by bringing reserve capacity into operation. We currently have some staff shortages in London, particularly because of the rapid improvement in the labour market, and this step will help us to cover any gaps.
	Let me also set out for the House how we are managing the prison estate. My objective is to bring down the cost of running the prison estate while maintaining capacity levels. An important part of that is replacing older, more expensive prisons with new or refurbished capacity that is less expensive to run. For example, in the past two years we have opened 2,500 new places, with a further 2,000 places due to open in the next nine months. That has enabled us in that period to close a little over 4,500 places in older prisons, saving us a total of £170 million during the current spending review period.
	In addition, we have launched a benchmarking programme across the prison estate to bring down costs. I introduced this programme in the autumn of 2012
	as an alternative to privatisation, at the request of the Prison Governors Association and the Prison Officers Association. Indeed, the leaders of the Prison Officers Association sat in my office and described my decision to do so as a “victory” for them. I am grateful to our staff for their hard work in taking these difficult changes forward.
	The programme of change has been praised by the National Audit Office and by the Public Accounts Committee and its chairman. The National Audit Office said recently:
	“The strategy for the prison estate is the most coherent and comprehensive for many years, has quickly cut operating costs, and is a significant improvement in value for money on the approaches of the past.”
	We will end this Parliament with more adult male prison places than we inherited, more hours of work being done in prisons than we inherited, more education for young detainees than we inherited, and a more modern, cost-effective prison estate than we inherited. That is anything but a crisis.

Sadiq Khan: The complacency of the Justice Secretary and the extent to which he is out of touch are breathtaking. He appears to think there are no problems in our prisons and that MPs can be kept in the dark about the fact that Ministers are demanding that already overcrowded prisons squeeze in another 400 inmates over the next few weeks. For example, Wandsworth prison in my constituency, which should have 943 inmates, currently has 1,597 and is operating at 169% capacity. But that is not the worst of it. This Justice Secretary has asked it to provide even more spaces.
	MPs are kept in the dark about the fact that over the past five months 600 emergency places have been bought from G4S, Serco and Sodexo—at what cost we do not know. We are kept in the dark about the fact that prison staff who were made redundant and paid off are now being paid to return to work owing to the chronic shortage of staff—at what cost we do not know.
	The Justice Secretary seems to think that there are no problems in our prisons. The NAO and the PAC do not agree with him. The chief inspector of prisons disagrees, as we heard this Saturday, and as he has said in every report he has written over the past two years. We disagree, prison governors disagree, prison staff disagree, experts disagree, and bereaved families disagree. Last month alone there were 11 self-inflicted deaths in our prisons. The Education Secretary may laugh; those families do not laugh. Can the Justice Secretary confirm that that was the case last month? Can he also confirm that last year self-harming, suicides and assaults on staff in adult male prisons went up?
	Since May 2010, this Government have closed 18 prisons and cut 6,000 staff, yet the prison population remains broadly the same. This crisis is of the Government’s own making. Does the Justice Secretary think that there is any link between that and the 60% rise in the use of the riot squad to deal with serious disturbances in our prisons last year? Does he accept responsibility for the fact that it is his policies that have led to the wrong sorts of prisoners being sent to open prisons and released on temporary licence? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), in whose constituency Ford prison is located and from which 90 offenders are currently on the run? He said on Saturday:
	“It’s becoming a pattern… the wrong people are being sent to Ford.”
	When did the Justice Secretary’s officials first warn him about the need to take emergency measures to deal with the most recent shortage of prison places? How many prisons are currently operating on half regime because of staffing shortages, meaning that prisoners are not working or going on courses, as they should be? What additional contingencies does he intend to put in place to deal with the possibility of disturbances in prisons?
	On this Government’s watch our prisons have become unsafe warehouses, rather than places where offenders can be rehabilitated. It is important that we get answers to these crucial questions if the public are to have confidence that prisons will continue to punish and reform while keeping prisoners, prison staff and the public safe.

Chris Grayling: Having listened to those comments, Members might never know the truth. Prison overcrowding is lower under this Government than it was in the last four years of the previous Labour Government. Let me walk the right hon. Gentleman through the operational capacity for adult males in our prisons: in May 2010 it was 80,269; today it is 82,395; and in 2015 it is predicted to be 85,133. That means the capacity for men in our prisons is increasing. The tornado squads, which deal with serious incidents, have dealt with half the level of activity seen in 2007.
	I think that the right hon. Gentleman needs a little bit of a lesson in what a prison capacity crisis really is. It is having to introduce a special scheme to let prisoners go home after serving a quarter of their sentence because there are not enough places to keep them in. That is what Labour did. It is deciding to shorten everyone’s sentence by a few weeks because they did not plan for the places needed. That is what Labour did. They let out more than 80,000 people early, and 1,500 of them committed suspected crimes when they should have been in prison. That is my definition of a prison overcrowding crisis, and it happened under Labour. Now they have the nerve to call sensible contingency planning a crisis, even though they were the ones who were forced to rent out thousands of police cells across the country because they ran out of space.
	I make no apology for the fact that under this Government more people are going to prison, and they are going to prison for longer. I have a strategy in place to ensure that we will always have the space for them.

Alan Beith: Why should Britain find it necessary to have a higher proportion of its population in prison than almost any other western European country?

Chris Grayling: Of course, we have a much lower proportion of our population in prison than many other countries, but I would like it to be smaller. That is precisely why I believe that the reforms to the way in which we rehabilitate offenders—for example, supervising offenders who go to jail for less than 12 months, who currently get no support, guidance or mentoring—will make the kind of difference that enables us to bring down our prison population in future. That is a goal we should all share.

Paul Flynn: The chief inspector stated in his report on Oakwood prison that it was easier to obtain an illegal drug in prison than to obtain a bar of soap. He also stated that one of the main reasons for that is prisoners refusing to be tested for drug use. There is not a single prison in this country that is free from illegal drug use. When can we expect at least one to be cleaned up?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proportion of positive drug tests in our prisons has fallen sharply in recent years; that is to be encouraged. I am confident that Oakwood’s upcoming inspection report will show a significant improvement. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a Welsh MP; one of the Welsh prisons—Parc, a large new prison that had some teething problems—has turned into one of the best performing prisons in the estate. I am confident that the same thing will happen to Oakwood.

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. Friend should be commended on the energetic way that he, in an unprotected Department, has sought to contribute to meeting the Government’s wider economic objectives. He is entirely right that the overcrowding crisis was inherited in 2010, but is it not about time that we started thinking about the long term—about addressing the issue of the 20,000 prisoners who are in overcrowded conditions—and began to look properly at reconstituting a privatisation programme, so that we can have better-manned prisons with more efficiency for the taxpayer?

Chris Grayling: The approach that we have taken on privatisation has been to privatise individual services in the way that was recommended by the Prison Governors Association, because we needed to drive through savings quickly across the whole estate, rather than across part of it, but my hon. Friend’s point is sensible. I do not want a prison population the size of the one we have, but nor do I ever want a court to be unable to send an offender to prison when it believes that it should do so. That is why our rehabilitation strategy is so important. The way we will bring down the population of our prison estate is by preventing people from coming back to it, rather than by not locking them up in the first place.

Caroline Lucas: What consideration has the Secretary of State given to treating drug addiction as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue? If he did that, he would have far more space in his prisons.

Chris Grayling: My Department and the Department of Health have jointly launched an integrated drug rehabilitation service in north-west England, which will ensure that rehab continues beyond the prison gate and is afterwards delivered by the same people. I am very much of the view that we have to tackle drug addiction, but we have to make the best use of the time in which we have people in custody, so that we ensure that they do not come back because of their addiction, that we get them off drugs, and that they do not reoffend.

Philip Davies: I do not lie awake at night worrying about prisoners being in overcrowded conditions; if they did not want to be in overcrowded
	conditions, they should not have committed the crimes that got them sent to prison. Will the Secretary of State do more to encourage the Chancellor to find more money for prison building? If he is looking for suggestions as to where the money could be found, perhaps it could come from the £20 billion a year we give to the EU in membership fees, or from the overseas aid budget. When it comes to tackling any prison overcrowding issue, will he pledge not to do what the last Labour Government did in letting out prisoners before the end of their sentence?

Chris Grayling: This is what baffles me about the Opposition’s questions and challenges over this issue, because I am precisely not letting out people who should be in prison. I am simply taking sensible precautions to bring on additional capacity. I have to say that if prisoners have to share a cell, I do not regard it as a great problem. I think that the courts should be able to send people to prison if they want to, as does my hon. Friend.

David Hanson: In early 2010, when the Prime Minister first took office, he promised to take an axe to the number of foreign national prisoners in prisons. The figure then was 11,135. Will the Secretary of State tell me what progress has been made, because by my calculations, the number has reduced by about 40 a year?

Chris Grayling: The figure is, of course, now coming down. It is lower than it was when we took office, and it is roughly proportionate to the number of people in the population who were not born in the UK. We have to bear in mind that one of the reasons why we have a high proportion of foreign national offenders in our jails is that when the Labour party was in government it had a reckless policy on the number of people allowed to migrate to this country.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I have three excellent custodial institutions in my constituency: Rye Hill and Onley prisons, and the secure training centre at Rainsbrook, all of which have fantastic staff and do a brilliant job. I welcome the answer to the urgent question, which was spurious at best, but will there be a recategorisation of prisons? Her Majesty’s prison Onley is heading down the track of being fully made up of sex offenders, and it perhaps deserves recategorisation.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am in favour of greater specialisation within the prison estate; it allows us to concentrate expertise in particular places. Of course, the biggest change in the estate will be the shaping of a system of resettlement prisons—that will begin later this year—to accompany our rehabilitation reforms, so that some prisons specialise in particular needs, as is the case in his constituency, and others are very much geared to preparing people who are in the last few months of their sentence for release, to try to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Jonathan Edwards: Swansea prison is the most overcrowded prison in the whole of England and Wales: it is at nearly double its capacity. What particular measures is the Secretary of State considering to alleviate the situation in Swansea?

Chris Grayling: The overcrowding levels at Swansea jail have barely changed in the past four years. Clearly, I would like to bring down the number of people in overcrowded jails, which is why we are increasing the capacity of the adult male estate and why I will bring new capacity on stream this autumn. Of course, two years down the track we will open the first new prison in Wales for a very long time. It will be the first since Parc prison and the first to be located in north Wales—it will be in Wrexham—which will ease pressures on the system in Wales and allow us to detain prisoners closer to home.

Edward Garnier: When I was a shadow prisons Minister and Labour was in government, I visited about 70 of the 140 or so prisons, young offender institutions and secure training units throughout England and Wales. Despite the best efforts of the staff, those prisons were almost universally overcrowded and full of people who were unable to get educated or rehabilitated while in prison. My right hon. Friend has set in train a programme of rehabilitation which will ensure that those who are currently in prison will not go back. Will he push on with that programme with vigour?

Chris Grayling: Yes, I absolutely will. We will work on rehabilitation reforms post-prison and look to improve the level of work in prisons. We will also look to continue to expand education and training in prisons. We have, for example, set in train plans to double the amount of education in the youth estate. Those things simply did not happen under the previous Government. Labour Members accuse us of warehousing offenders, but I think they were the ones who were guilty of that.

John McDonnell: The Secretary of State has quoted the Prison Officers Association. He is not a man who would want to mislead or confuse the House, so may I tell him what the POA has said today? It has said:
	“The decision by NOMS”—
	that is, himself—
	“to further ‘crowd’ the already overcrowded public sector estate by an additional 440 undermines the commitment that prisons will be safe, secure and decent”.
	The POA describes that as
	“the perfect storm of a rising population, a lack of staff and too few prison cells.”
	Could the Secretary of State start listening to the prison officers themselves, for a change?

Chris Grayling: When we set about the current programme of benchmarking, I did precisely that: I listened to our staff and governors and accepted their recommendation, and I am implementing their recommendation thanks to the hard work of staff at all levels across the prison estate. The hon. Gentleman talks nonsense when he suggests I am not listening to the staff.

Julian Huppert: This is an old story. Twelve years ago, the then Labour prisons Minister tried to defend a situation in which 20% of prisoners had to double up in a cell meant for one, saying this situation was only very limited. The problem is that there are twice as many people in prison than there were
	in 1993, costing £2.2 billion a year. Will the Secretary of State make it his aim to have fewer people in prison, particularly on short sentences, especially when we know that other sanctions are better at reducing reoffending and are preferred by victims?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend and I share the same objectives, and that is what our rehabilitation reforms are about. The truth is that approximately 95% of the people who end up in prison have already been through community sentences and probation work. We have to improve what happens at that stage and rehabilitation post-prison, but what we cannot do is simply not send to prison people who have committed serious crimes and are found guilty by the courts.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The Secretary of State may know that I, too, have three prisons in my constituency. Just last month, the chief inspector’s report on Durham prison noted that it faced huge challenges and stated clearly that cells designed to hold one prisoner should not be used for two. At the time of the inspection, a prison designed for 597 prisoners was accommodating 940. Why is the Secretary of State not doing more to alleviate this appalling overcrowding, rather than seeking to exacerbate it?

Chris Grayling: I do not think the hon. Lady has been listening to what I have been saying. Today, despite the budget cuts we have had to push through, a smaller proportion of prisoners are being forced to share a cell than was the case under the Labour Government, who were in office until 2010. We are delivering a better performance for less money and in difficult circumstances. I am proud of that and Labour should be ashamed of itself.

John Glen: What impact is investment in IT having on the ability of the Department and prison management to manage the movement of prisoners, and will it in effect deliver better rehabilitative services in education for prisoners?

Chris Grayling: The IT work that is being done across not just the prison system but the criminal justice system is enormously important for the future not only in improving efficiency, but in ensuring a really joined-up approach from the time somebody is first arrested, through the court system and prison, to the support we provide post-prison and our probation work, and in understanding, should they reoffend, where they have had issues in the past. It is enormously important and it is already improving efficiency, but there is a lot more we can do.

David Wright: The rehabilitation of offenders and the control of their behaviour in prison occur best when they are close to family and friends who can influence their rehabilitation. How many prisoners are currently housed in prisons more than 60 miles from their home community?

Chris Grayling: I cannot give an exact figure, but I can say that as we introduce resettlement prisons in the last part of this year, the vast majority of offenders—not absolutely all, but almost all offenders—will spend at
	least the last few months of their sentence in the geographic area into which they will be released, which will help with precisely the links the hon. Gentleman talks about.

Dominic Raab: Will the Justice Secretary confirm that there are more offenders in jail now than there were under the previous Government, and that crime is lower now than under the previous Government? Will he also confirm that there will be absolutely no repeat of the shambolic early release scheme, which saw 80,000 prisoners let out early, meaning that we had to prosecute hundreds of them, including for murder and other serious violent offences?

Chris Grayling: I completely agree. To be frank, I would like to have the capacity to unravel some of the residual schemes that I inherited, such as the home detention curfew scheme, which in my view should not have been introduced in the first place and which people struggle to understand. I will not be able to do that until resources are available, but it is certainly my ambition.

Geraint Davies: In the light of what he has said, perhaps the Justice Secretary would like to spend the night at Swansea prison. It is the most overcrowded prison in Britain—I guess he would say it is the most popular—with two prisoners for every place. They are crammed in cells, with shared toilets, in sweltering heat, staying there day and night. Will he at last accept responsibility for the closure of 18 jails, the loss of 3,500 prison officers and the ever-escalating increase in the prison population that has led to an increase in assaults on prison officers and the deaths, suicides and self-harming of prisoners? Will he stand aside for someone who will not put at risk the public, prisoners and prison officers, and resign for his heartless, mindless incompetence?

Chris Grayling: Mr Speaker, sometimes you hear contributions in this House that are beyond parody. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he was not in the House during the last Parliament because he lost in 2005, but I do not recall that he called for the resignation of previous Labour Ministers when levels of overcrowding were higher.
	Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what I have done in Wales. I have recognised the fact that that the prison system in Wales has a problem because north Wales does not have a prison, which means that prisoners from north Wales cannot be housed close to home. What have I done? I have won from the Chancellor £250 million-plus to build a new prison in north Wales. That is doing the right thing for the people of Wales.

Rehman Chishti: On prisons and overcrowding, according to a written answer to a question I asked, prisoners were given additional days for bad behaviour on 11,550 occasions in 2009. Will the Secretary of State clarify that this Government have done a lot to address the issue of bad behaviour, thereby affecting capacity in prisons?

Chris Grayling: We have introduced a tougher and more spartan regime in our prisons, as well as tougher penalties for those who abscond post-prison and break their licence conditions, who can now go to jail for much longer. Interestingly, the penalty that staff appear
	to believe is most valuable in dealing with troublesome prisoners is the removal of prisoners’ television sets from their cells when they behave badly.

Kevin Brennan: Rehabilitation is important, and purposeful activity is particularly important, including the learning of musical instruments. Will the Justice Secretary ask his prisons Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), to approach with an open mind the meeting that I am having with him and Billy Bragg on Thursday, with a view to giving a positive response to our proposals if we can show that such rehabilitation will be of benefit?

Chris Grayling: I will of course ask my hon. Friend to approach that meeting with an open mind. However, although we want to encourage positive activities within prisons, there is a genuine issue for discussion about whether metal strings or metal ligaments should be made available, given that some people of course want to cause trouble in prisons.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome the increased prison capacity that has been announced today. One reason for the huge increase in the prison population is the reoffending that takes place. Labour identified that and spent £9 billion on it, but there has been little change. Will the Secretary of State say what is being done by this Government to ensure that prisoners do not reoffend when they leave prison?

Chris Grayling: That is at the heart of our reforms to the probation service, which will mean, crucially, that later this year we will begin to provide support, supervision and mentoring to short-sentence prisoners when they leave prison. At the moment, they get nothing at all and are left to their own devices, and nearly two thirds of them reoffend quickly. That is the biggest blot on our criminal justice system. Unlike the last Government, we are doing something about it.

Andrew Gwynne: In a spirit of openness, perhaps the Justice Secretary will tell the House how much the emergency prison places that he has bought from private prisons are costing the public purse, so that we can ascertain whether they are more cost-effective than the prison places that he has closed.

Chris Grayling: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the marginal cost of an additional place within a prison is much lower than the overall cost of running a prison.

Nick de Bois: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government’s focus on mentoring, rehabilitating and reducing the reoffending of short-term prisoners is one of the key drivers in reducing the prison population, and that it is a far better alternative than letting thousands of serious offenders out on the streets, as the last Government did?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have to bear it in mind that nearly 60% of the 50,000 people who are released on to the streets after short sentences each year reoffend. If we can bring that level
	of reoffending down so that it is closer to the level for those who go to prison for longer periods, it will significantly increase our success in reducing reoffending and, as my Liberal Democrat colleagues have said, bring down the prison population.

Kerry McCarthy: Last year’s inspection of Bristol prison found that the prison was dirty; that prisoners could not get clean clothes, clean bedding or cleaning materials; that it was easy to get drugs; and that about half the prisoners spent all day locked in their cells. How does the Secretary of State think such conditions help the rehabilitative process?

Chris Grayling: We are working as hard as we can to increase the number of hours that are worked in prisons, and the number is rising steadily. We have a very energetic team that is looking for new business opportunities. Of course, in a prison that is dirty, the most readily available work force to clean it are the prisoners themselves. In many prisons that I have been around, they are doing a first-rate job of that.

Martin Vickers: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust response this afternoon and over the weekend in the media. I urge him to redouble his efforts to ensure that foreign prisoners are returned to their home countries as quickly as possible to serve their sentences, which relieves pressure on space and budgets.

Chris Grayling: I assure my hon. Friend that that remains a major priority. I pay tribute to the prisons Minister, who has successfully completed one prisoner transfer agreement and is discussing others. We need to do everything we can to return people to their country of origin as soon as possible, because it reduces the pressures on the prison population.

Barry Sheerman: I remind the Secretary of State that the urgent question is the result of a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, which is independent, not of some political plot against him. I also remind him that when I was Chair of the Education Committee, we found that education, skills and rehabilitation in prisons were the first things to go to the wall when there was overcrowding.

Chris Grayling: There was no report from the independent inspectorate about this matter. We are increasing the amount of education in prisons where we can. I have just announced a doubling of the amount of education that is done by youth offenders in the youth offender estate. We are also launching a new secure college, which will have an education-focused curriculum. For reasons that completely escape me, the Opposition oppose replacing a prison-type institution that has bars on the windows with something more akin to a school or college that does positive skill building. I think they are bonkers.

Robert Halfon: The fact that crime is down suggests that reoffending rates are coming down too. Will my right hon. Friend set out the coalition Government’s progressive, forward-looking rehabilitation measures that will reduce reoffending rates still further?

Chris Grayling: If I may, I will correct my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that crime is falling. The number of first-time entrants into the criminal justice system is dropping as well. The challenge for us is that the level of reoffending has barely changed. That is the next frontier. That is why we are reforming the way we support and rehabilitate offenders, why there is a greater focus on education in the youth estate, and why there is mentoring and support for those who get short sentences. That is the way to take crime reduction to the next level.

Diana Johnson: By exactly how many prison officers is the prison system short?

Chris Grayling: I expect to recruit about 80 to 100 temporary staff, and of course we have a recruitment process all the time. Like any big organisation with tens of thousands of employees, we have a constant process of people moving on and people being recruited and trained. As I outlined earlier, we need some 80 to 100 officers, but I want to build up a much larger reserve so that if we get fluctuations in future we have a pool of people we can draw on, in the same way as the health service and education system do.

Peter Bone: I agree entirely with the thrust of policy from the Secretary of State and, of course, the excellent prisons Minister. In Wellingborough, we have a prison that is, rightly, temporarily closed, but which could be opened very quickly. The problem is not capacity across the nation; it is overcrowding in London. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the possibility of reopening the prison in Wellingborough?

Chris Grayling: I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the situation in Wellingborough, and I do not intend to take any steps to dispose of that prison, because it is sensible for us to have reserve capacity available. I have no immediate plans to change the status of Wellingborough from being a mothballed site.

Philip Hollobone: A prison population of 86,000 would be far nearer 75,000 were it not for the large number of foreign national offenders in our jails. Surely it is possible to negotiate with the high-volume countries, such as Nigeria, Jamaica and Pakistan, for them to take back their offenders. If they will not, we should send them the bill, which is approaching £300 million a year. Will the Secretary of State put this issue at the top of his to-do list to address the issue of the number of people in our jails?

Chris Grayling: As my hon. Friend knows, this is a matter of great concern to Ministers. We are also seeking to speed up the formal deportation process through the Home Office. We need to reduce the numbers significantly, but it is proving to be a more stubborn and difficult task than any of us would wish. My hon. Friend should not, however, believe that we have anything other than a clear aspiration to do this. The sooner we can reduce that population, the sooner we can ease some of the other pressures on our prison system, or put in prison one or two other people we might want to see there.

Iraq and Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Iraq, and update the House on the outcome of last week’s global summit to end sexual violence in conflict.
	The Sunni extremist group “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant”—ISIL—launched a series of attacks and car bombings in Iraqi cities, including Baghdad, Samarra, Ramadi and Jalawla, over the last 10 days, culminating in the capture of Mosul on Tuesday. From Mosul, ISIL, with other armed groups, took control of the towns on the main route to Baghdad, including Tikrit, 110 miles north of the capital. The Iraqi security forces initially proved unable to resist these attacks, although there are now signs of a fight back in the area around Samarra.
	These are extremely grave developments. ISIL is the most violent and brutal militant group in the middle east. It has a long record of atrocities, including use of improvised explosive devices, abductions, torture and killings. The reported massacre of 1,700 Shi’a air force recruits is more evidence of its brutality. ISIL’s aim is to establish a sharia Islamic state in the region, and it is pursuing these goals by attacking the Government of Iraq, gaining control of territory, and inciting sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims.
	The group has bases in northern Syria as well as in Iraq. While the majority of its members are Iraqi or Syrian, it also includes a significant number of foreign fighters among its ranks. As I have previously told this House, we estimate the number of UK-linked individuals fighting in Syria to include approximately 400 British nationals and other UK-linked individuals who could present a particular risk should they return to the UK. Some of these are, inevitably, fighting with ISIL.
	Over the last few days, I have held discussions with Foreign Ministers from the region, including Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari and Turkish Foreign Minister Davotoglu, with whom I discussed the welfare of more than 60 Turkish citizens kidnapped in Mosul. Our national interest lies in supporting a sovereign and democratic Iraq to resist those threats, offering assistance where necessary and working with others to prevent the spread of terrorism in Iraq and throughout the region.
	On Friday, I held talks with Secretary Kerry in London. We agreed that the prime responsibility for leading the response to these events lies with the Iraqi Government. The United States, which is the country with the most appropriate assets and capabilities, is considering a range of options that could help the Iraqi security forces push back on ISIL advances. President Obama has been clear that action taken by the United States will succeed only if accompanied by a political response from the Iraqi Government.
	We are taking action in three areas: promoting political unity among those who support a democratic Iraqi state and stability in the region; offering assistance where appropriate and possible; and alleviating humanitarian suffering. We have made it clear that this does not involve planning a military intervention by the UK.
	On the first of these points, yesterday I underlined to the Iraqi Foreign Minister the need for his colleagues to form a new and inclusive Government who bring together all Iraq’s different groups and are able to command support across Iraqi society. ISIL is taking advantage of political disaffection, including among Saddam-era officers and soldiers, and Sunni tribal fighters, who have lost trust in the Iraqi Government. Overcoming this will require a concerted political effort by the Government, including working with the Kurdistan Regional Government against this common threat. I welcome the fact that the Iraqi Supreme Court has today ratified the large majority of the results of April’s elections, and I call on them to announce the full results as soon as possible to allow for the rapid formation of a new Government in Baghdad.
	On our second objective, we are examining what more we can do to assist the Iraqi authorities directly in their security response. We are urging them to take effective measures to organise security forces effectively and push ISIL back from the areas it has occupied, while protecting civilian life, infrastructure and vital services. We are discussing with the Iraqi Government areas for co-operation, including the possibility of offering counter-terrorism expertise. We are also providing consular assistance to a small number of British nationals who have been affected. For this purpose, a UK Ministry of Defence operational liaison and reconnaissance team arrived in Baghdad on Saturday to help to assess the situation on the ground and to assist the embassy in contingency planning.
	Thirdly, we have responded rapidly to the humanitarian emergency. About 500,000 people are reported to have been displaced in the north and now need urgent support. Last week, we were the first donor country to send a field team to the Kurdistan region, where they met UN and non-governmental organisation contacts and the Kurdish authorities. My right hon. Friend, the International Development Secretary announced on Saturday that we would provide £3 million of immediate assistance, including £2 million from the rapid response facility to NGOs for water and sanitation and other emergency relief and £l million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for mobile protection teams and establishing camps. We are considering urgently what further assistance we can provide.
	The rise of sectarianism and religious intolerance is fuelling instability in the middle east. This has been compounded by the brutality of the Assad regime, whose relentless war against its own people has created an opening for extremists. That is why we will continue to support the moderate opposition in Syria, who have had the courage to fight directly against ISIL and other extremists, as well as urging the Iraqi Government to take the political and military steps required to defeat such groups in Iraq. We are also working to reinforce stability across the region, including through providing significant security support to the Governments of Lebanon and Jordan, as well as £243 million in humanitarian assistance to those countries. We will intensify our efforts in the coming days and weeks to tackle this serious threat to international peace and security.
	Addressing the crises of today should never prevent us from dealing with the longer-term issues that are fundamental to conflict prevention in many parts of the
	world. Last week, I co-hosted the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, the largest ever summit held on this issue. It was attended by 128 countries, 79 Ministers and eight UN agency heads, as well as by presidents and prosecutors from the International Criminal Court and international tribunals, and more than 300 delegates from conflict-affected countries.
	The summit had two primary objectives: to agree practical action to tackle impunity for the use of rape as a weapon of war and to begin to change global attitudes to these crimes. We opened the summit up to thousands of members of the public, at 175 public events. Our embassies held events to mirror what was going on in London for the entire 84-hour period and our intensive social media campaign reached all parts of the world. This was the most important milestone yet in our efforts to address this issue. My intention is to create unstoppable momentum in addressing these crimes, which are among the worst experienced in the world today.
	We set in motion a series of practical steps and commitments. We launched the first ever international protocol on how to document and investigate sexual violence in conflict as a means of overcoming the barriers to prosecutions of these crimes. I announced £6 million in new UK funding to support survivors of rape, and the United States, Finland, Bahrain, Australia, Japan and others also made new and generous pledges. The African Union also announced a pilot project in the Central African Republic to respond to the urgent needs of victims of sexual violence. The Somali Government launched a new action plan on Somalia, supported by the UN and the international community, for addressing sexual violence, which has blighted the lives of thousands of women, men and children.
	Within the summit, I convened a special meeting on security in Nigeria following the abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls in April and a summit on this issue in Paris last month. We agreed that a regional intelligence fusion unit should be made operational immediately. The countries of the region also agreed rapidly to implement joint or co-ordinated patrols along their borders, and Cameroon committed to add a battalion to that regional taskforce. The UK, US and France pledged to support these regional efforts. On behalf of the UK, I announced a separate package of support for Nigeria, including increased tactical training for the Nigerian army, assistance to regional security and intelligence co-operation, and a joint UK-US educational programme to educate an additional 1 million children in Nigeria. All the parties present also agreed on the need for UN sanctions against Boko Haram’s leadership and Ansaru, another dangerous terrorist organisation.
	Finally, states and delegates at the summit joined together to sign a statement of action, uniting Governments, UN agencies, civil society, experts and survivors with a shared determination to tackle these issues. We will now work hard to ensure that the momentum is sustained and accelerated in the months and years ahead. We will publish a comprehensive report on the summit that will distil the expert recommendations that were made. We will turn our focus to practical implementation of the international protocol. We will continue to use our team of experts in conflict-affected countries. For the past two years, the United Kingdom has led the way
	internationally in addressing these vital issues and we must continue to do so until the scourge of sexual violence is finally confronted, addressed and defeated.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this afternoon.
	Let me begin by turning to the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on Iraq. That country is today facing fundamental threats to its integrity, security and stability. Faced with a lightning advance by a few thousand Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant fighters from their base in Syria’s Raqqah province, the Iraqi army’s presence in the northern and western Sunni-majority provinces has effectively collapsed. Beneath these latest advances for ISIL lies the deeper and fundamental question, not just for Iraq, but for its neighbouring countries across the region: can they, in time, develop a pluralistic, democratic politics, where people live together as citizens, rather than dividing along sectarian, ethnic or religious lines? Alas, today, the answer to that question still remains uncertain.
	Inevitably and understandably, these events have rekindled the debate around the military intervention in Iraq 11 years ago. For most British people, including many of us who supported the action at the time, the fears of those opposed to the intervention have been vindicated by subsequent events. It is futile to deny that subsequent history, as surely as it would be folly to repeat it. Yet it is also facile to suggest that the crisis affecting Iraq today can be attributed solely to the consequences of intervention. Such an account denies the truth that the slide towards crisis in Iraq has been exacerbated by the civil war in Syria. Today these are two nations sitting astride the Sunni-Shi’ite faultline, engulfed increasingly by sectarian violence, while the rest of the region has looked on as sectarian tensions rise.
	Tragically for Iraq, the hallmark of Nouri al-Maliki’s Shi’a-dominated Government has been a sectarian rather than an inclusive approach. Indeed, the welcome progress made by the leadership of the Kurdistan Regional Government since 2003 serves only further to highlight the extent of the Iraqi central Government’s failures in moving the country forward. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what specific steps the UK Government are taking, in co-ordination with allies, to encourage that formation of a new Government in Iraq? Beyond his conversation yesterday, what contact is being planned to urge Prime Minister Maliki to take concrete measures to reduce sectarian tensions, empower regional Governments and re-professionalise the Iraqi armed forces?
	Today and in statements made over recent days, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that British military intervention in Iraq is not being contemplated. I welcome this assurance. Will he further give the House the assurance that the Government will not agree to any proposals significantly to increase the nature or scale of support that we are already giving to the Iraqi Government without a much wider debate in Parliament, and indeed the country?
	It is clear that Iran is heavily engaged in Iraq today, so it was disappointing to hear Tehran apparently rule out direct talks with the Americans earlier this morning. I welcome confirmation that the Foreign Secretary has
	been in touch with his Iranian counterpart earlier today, but does he agree with me that there is now an urgent case for ensuring an effective British diplomatic presence in Tehran to help co-ordinate such discussions and to advance dialogue?
	As the crisis continues, the scale of the humanitarian suffering inevitably grows, so I welcome the additional humanitarian funding that the Government have already announced, but will any further requests from Iraq’s Government for additional humanitarian support be considered promptly?
	Many British citizens will have watched the scenes both in Syria and Iraq in recent days with growing concern and anxiety, so it is right that we pay tribute today to the work of the British intelligence and security forces, which are doing vital work to keep us all safe. Will the Foreign Secretary set out the Government’s latest assessment of the threat posed by British citizens returning from the region? I know that the Foreign Secretary will be concerned, too, about the safety of British diplomatic staff in Baghdad, Erbil, and Basra, so can he assure us that all the necessary plans are in place to guarantee their safety? The most urgent task now is for Iraq’s leadership to unite and galvanise its response to this crisis—the future of the whole country and the fate of millions of its citizens depend upon that.
	Let me turn now to the preventing sexual violence in conflict summit in London, which was a genuine credit to the work of campaigners and activists around the world who have tirelessly worked to raise this issue up on the political agenda. The British Government, and the Foreign Secretary personally, have done a great deal in recent months to help do just that, and I commend him sincerely for his efforts.
	The Foreign Secretary was right to say in his statement that the priority now must be to translate words into practical action. I welcome the further £6 million pledged by the UK to support survivors of sexual violence in conflict. The statement of action to tackle the culture of impunity surrounding sexual violence in conflict, to which the Foreign Secretary rightly referred, was indeed an important step forward. Alongside agreeing a coherent legal framework, will he set out what further steps will be taken to help tackle some of the underlying issues that contribute to impunity, such as the independence of the judiciary within conflict-affected states? I look forward to the publication of the comprehensive report on the summit. Could he give us an indication of when we can expect it to be published? The real test now is whether the summit in London can make a difference on the ground in conflict zones around the world. The Foreign Secretary will certainly have our support in his work to ensure that it does.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. There is a huge amount of common ground on both these subjects. As he said, now is an important moment for seeing whether pluralistic, truly democratic politics can be created in Iraq. He made some references to the history and debates surrounding intervention, and I agree with what he said about that, too, in that there are many roots to what is happening here, including the growth of sectarianism, of religious intolerance across the middle east and, of course, the crisis in Syria. We must not think that everything that happens is a result of western action or inaction, although our actions can, of course, have a very important effect.
	As for the specific steps that we are taking to encourage that pluralistic and inclusive politics, the primary step is, of course, persuasion. This is a sovereign country. I have put that argument—not for the first time—to Iraqi Ministers, who have been making the case directly to Prime Minister Maliki, among others, for some time, and our embassy is busily engaged in doing that with Iraqi Ministers now. However, I think that what has happened in Iraq over the past week will be a very vivid demonstration to Iraqi leaders that this is necessary, and is in their own interest. It is not just desirable as a point of political principle. It is essential for the future of Iraq that Sunni, Shi’a and Kurds work together—that all who support the existence of an Iraqi state work together—and if what is now happening does not demonstrate that clearly to them, nothing will. We will always try to persuade, but events on the ground are demonstrating the need for this.
	The right hon. Gentleman endorsed what I had said about our approach to questions of military intervention. I am sure that, if there were a substantial change in that policy, I should be back here explaining it to the House, or asking permission for it, depending on the circumstances. He asked about relations with Iran. As I said in my statement, over the last few days I have talked to a number of Foreign Ministers around the region. As well as those whom I mentioned in the statement, I have talked to Ministers in Israel and Iran. Indeed, I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Iran on Saturday about a number of matters, including the situation in Iraq. He said that there was a case for a further step forward in our bilateral relations. I have discussed that with him, and I shall have something more to say about our discussions imminently—in fact, very imminently, if the right hon. Gentleman is here tomorrow. That is a heavy hint. However, our work on that is distinct from discussions on Iraq, which is partly why I shall address those separately.
	As for humanitarian support, the right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and her Department are very quick to react. They have had the first field team in the north of Iraq in the last few days. They work closely with all the United Nations agencies, and envisage that more support may be necessary. Of course, we keep the safety of our staff in Baghdad under close review.
	I was grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s supportive remarks about the work of the Government and many people around the world on the preventing sexual violence initiative. As he said, the key thing now is to turn that into practical action. I am convinced that if everyone who was at the summit last week now did what is set out in the protocol and the declaration on ending sexual violence in conflict, it would make a huge difference throughout the world. We all understand that a great deal of work will still be necessary to ensure that practical actions are taken by prosecutors in independent judiciaries, in military training and in the changing of laws. However, I believe that we have given real momentum to that work, and that it is an essential part of what I have described as a great strategic prize of this century: the full social, political and economic empowerment of women everywhere. We in the Government will remain utterly dedicated to that.

Malcolm Rifkind: In the light of Tony Blair’s protestations to the contrary, I commend the shadow Foreign Secretary for making it clear that he accepts that the crisis in Iraq today has its roots in the chaos that has continued since the ill-judged invasion of that country in 2003.
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that long-term stability in Iraq cannot be achieved until the Iraqi Government accept the need to incorporate and absorb the Sunni population in Government at the highest levels, proportionate to their legitimate entitlement, and will he make it clear to the Iraqi Government that serious support from this Government will not be possible until that happens?

William Hague: Yes, I do agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Only yesterday, I made it very clear to the Foreign Minister of Iraq that the support that will be received from the rest of the world will be closely related to progress made on that issue of bringing Shi’a, Sunni and Kurds together. This is essential. As I mentioned in my statement, President Obama has made it clear that support of various kinds from the United States may well be conditional on political action by the Iraqi Government, so that message is very clear.

Jack Straw: I commend what the Foreign Secretary said, and also what my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said in his careful remarks about the history here, but may I press the Foreign Secretary a little on the issue of Iran? I welcome the imminent statement he is due to make tomorrow, which I assume means there will be a strengthening of relations, but does he recall that after 9/11, and until, frankly, the Khatami Government were undermined gratuitously by President Bush in his axis of evil speech, the Iranian Government gave the British and American Governments very good, positive and trusting co-operation in respect of the removal of the Taliban? Does he also accept that, with the current Rouhani Government, there is an opportunity to build more positive relations, because the Iranians have a similar interest to us in ensuring their neighbour is a stable democracy and not reduced to the chaos it is in now?

William Hague: Yes, of course we do have, going back over many decades and including now, important common interests with Iran, and that includes stability in Iraq and, indeed, in Afghanistan. There are also many other issues, such as dealing with the narcotics trade, on which Iran and the UK have common interests, and that is a very good argument for trying to advance our bilateral relations. Of course we also have to deal with the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme, which was something else I discussed with the Foreign Minister at the weekend, and there will be further negotiations this week. We also need Iran to make its contribution to stability in the region by ceasing its support for sectarian groups in other parts of the region. We look to Iran to do those things, but do we have some common interests? Yes, we do.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend will recall that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends at the time were unequivocally opposed to the military invasion. Notwithstanding that fact, I can tell him that I am sympathetic to the view that it
	cannot be credibly said that the invasion is the sole cause of the present situation in Iraq, although it is, I think, now generally accepted across the House that it has most certainly made a significant contribution.
	May I turn, however, to the issue of Iran, properly raised by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)? There is no question but that the United States and Iran have different motives, but as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged a moment or two ago, they have common interests, so co-operation between them, even if covert, would be in the interests of us all.

William Hague: Well, of course covert co-operation is not something I will speculate about on the Floor of the House; it is not my habit to do so for very good reasons. Of course those common interests with Iran are there in respect of the stability of the entire region. That is very clear, but I stress again that Iran can do a great deal for stability across the whole of the middle east by desisting with a nuclear programme that threatens nuclear proliferation across the region and by ceasing support for sectarian or terrorist groups elsewhere. There is a heavy responsibility on Iran, as well as on all of us to do what we can to improve relations and to get that point across to Iran.

Glenda Jackson: The past is always with us. We are urged to learn from our mistakes, and I am delighted to hear that the British Government have learnt and that there will be no military incursion in this particular war. May I also add my voice to those that have already been raised to say that the British Government should encourage Iran to think again, to work with America and our allies, and to bring its best efforts to bear on ending what is, in the Foreign Secretary’s own words, a Government of sectarianism and religious intolerance? Surely the way to bring about an inclusive Government in Iraq is to urge the stepping down of Prime Minister Malaki at the earliest possible moment?

William Hague: It is not for us—the Government of another nation—to try to pick and choose who will be the Prime Minister in Iraq. After all, we have all said for so long how much we believe in democracy in Iraq, and that choice has to be the product of its own democracy. None the less, we can give it the advice, coming loudly and clearly from this House today, that it needs political unity in Government, in support of the existence of its state and the functions of government, between Sunni and Shi’a groups, with the inclusion of Sunni leaders, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) mentioned. We want Iran to encourage that as well. Indeed, one of the points I made to Foreign Minister Zarif of Iran was that it is in Iran’s interest to press for that Sunni inclusion inside Iraq.

Liam Fox: Sadly, it is inevitable that there will be a heavy loss of life and bloodshed in the region, but it is imperative that ISIL is defeated. Although that must fall to the Governments in the region, primarily Iraq in the first place, where they have identified military capability gaps, we must be sympathetic and help them. The last thing we want to do is to send a message in advance that we have ruled anything out, which could only be of help and comfort to the terrorists.

William Hague: ISIL must be defeated, as my right hon. Friend says. I agree with him—I think it is the mood across the whole House—that the prime responsibility rests with Governments in the region, including the Iraqi Government, who have very substantial security forces at their disposal. As I said in my statement, we can provide assistance of various kinds, and other nations are considering other forms of assistance. The United States has said publicly that it is looking at all options. It has the assets and capabilities of the type, scale and location to deliver such assistance if it believes it can do so productively, so we will concentrate on helping in the way that I have set out.

Peter Hain: Given that the Sunni-Shi’a divide is now a fault line in the region and that an almost primeval form of jihadism is driving that on the Sunni side, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is imperative that ownership of solving this conflict has to be in the region, particularly in Iraq but also in neighbouring Iran, which, as he has implied, could help significantly? I agree with the previous comments that it is imperative that we lose no opportunity to engage Iraq, even if it is not up in lights as some formal alliance, which is what has understandably been rejected this morning. It is a key to all of this, does he agree?

William Hague: I absolutely agree with the broad thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The prime responsibility lies with all the states of the region; they all have a responsibility to improve the way in which they work together, because they are all at risk in various ways. There is no state that has an interest in this instability in Iraq, other than possibly the regime in Damascus. Every established state in the middle east has its interests confronted and threatened by these developments. It is important that they improve their own working together, and we must use our own diplomacy to encourage that. I stress again that that requires a change of policy by Iran as well as every effort on our part to engage Iran.

Alistair Burt: It is a pity that we have had to run these two subjects together, because no one should underestimate the extraordinary work that my right hon. Friend has done in relation to raising the issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict to such a level. He fully deserves all the commendation he is getting.
	In relation to the issues in the wider middle east, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that we are dealing with non-state actors across boundaries with no accountability and a wicked ideology who are taking on individual states that are so consumed with their own internal problems that they cannot yet act together and recognise the scale of the threat? Does he have any sense that states recognise that, and that they will, at some stage, have to work together to kill off both the ideology and the people who are propounding it? In that struggle, we do have a role to play in order to combat a threat that will ultimately arrive on our doorstep.

William Hague: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. We have a role to play, and yet the responsibility of the states in the region that he talks about is clear as well. What happened last week has been a huge shock in Baghdad. It is a clear demonstration to them, as I said
	earlier, that they need greater political unity. It is also a clear demonstration that unity is needed across the Arab world in order to deal with these threats, working with religious leaders as well as working between national Governments. We will certainly encourage that as well as providing direct assistance of the type that I have described, and providing strong protection for our own national security through our counter-terrorism vigilance and expertise.

Mr Speaker: Noting his fetching white jacket, which is sparkling indeed, I call Mr Mike Gapes.

Mike Gapes: The Foreign Secretary was a Minister in John Major’s Government, a Government who used military intervention to impose a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds. That policy was continued and enhanced under the Tony Blair Government. We would not have millions of Iraqi Kurds living in peace, prosperity and democracy without the intervention that has taken place to protect them from Saddam. If we had brought back Saddam or Uday, the Kurds would have suffered in the same way as the rest of the Iraqis are suffering today. Therefore, if the Kurdistan Regional Government requests assistance, should we not give such a request sympathetic consideration?

William Hague: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of what we did, in this country, to protect the Kurds. Only a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government was here. We hear all the time, as he will have heard, the continuing gratitude of the people of that region for what the United Kingdom did.
	I am not arguing against all military interventions; I am saying that in this situation, now, in Iraq, we are not planning a military intervention. I am not saying that there will never be any circumstances in the world in which we may need to make a military intervention—far from it. We have had no such request from Kurdistan. Indeed, the forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government have acquitted themselves well in recent days, and they have been an important part of bringing about stability in the northern areas of Iraq. We have not received such a request, and we do not envisage such a request at the moment.

Richard Ottaway: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary can see the irony of the Iranians floating the idea of co-operation with the United States, albeit indirectly, having gone to such great lengths to get rid of it in 2011. Does he agree that this is the first time in decades that our interests coincide with those of the Iranians? My enemy’s enemy is my friend, so will he take every opportunity to build a rapport with the Iranians, which could have beneficial effects in other areas?

William Hague: I will do so, yes. We have overlapping interests, although I am not sure that it is the first time we have done so. We have always had common interests in some of the areas that I mentioned earlier, such as stability in Afghanistan. The current situation does highlight that, and as my right hon. Friend can gather from the conversation I had over the weekend with the
	Iranian Foreign Minister, we are making every effort to ensure that we discuss a whole range of issues with the Iranians. I say again that we are looking to them to change some of their approach in the wider region if they really want to be the agents of its stability, rather than its instability.

Angus Robertson: Tony Blair took the UK to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction that never existed. He was rewarded, remarkably, with the post of middle east peace envoy. Given his dangerous and ill-judged comments in the past few days, which were described by the Foreign Secretary’s colleague the Mayor of London as “unhinged”, does the Foreign Secretary agree that Tony Blair should not continue in post as a middle east peace envoy?

William Hague: No, I do not agree with that. Nor do I think that the recent events in Iraq should be turned into a proxy debate about Tony Blair and everything that he has ever said or done. The shadow Foreign Secretary is looking rather alarmed about the idea of a proxy debate about Tony Blair. In any case, we have set up an inquiry in this House into the Iraq war, and that inquiry will report in due course. [Hon. Members: “When?”] If the inquiry had been set up when I called for it, it would have reported a long time ago. Hon. Members will have to ask those who were in Government at the time, and who resisted such an inquiry for a long time, about the delay in its reporting.
	We can all pass judgment in detail when that report is published, but the issue we must address now is how to deal with this situation. I do not think it would help this situation for Tony Blair to feel that he has to resign from other positions.

John Glen: Many people in this country will be keen to understand how an estimated 400 British nationals came to be engaged in foreign terrorism in Iraq and Syria. What conversations is the Foreign Secretary having with his colleagues in government to ensure that those individuals will not have the option of returning to the UK—ever?

William Hague: We are having many conversations in government and, of course, with other Governments about how to prevent that. As my hon. Friend will understand, if a British national leaves via a third country and ultimately travels to Syria over the border of one of Syria’s neighbours, it is very difficult for us in the UK to know about that. We advise strongly against all travel to Syria and have made it very clear that the Home Secretary will not hesitate to use her powers to withdraw passports and cancel leave to remain in the United Kingdom and that our security forces will make arrests wherever there is the appropriate evidence. People can be absolutely sure that we will be extremely vigilant about this issue.

Bob Ainsworth: In Iraq and Syria and throughout the Muslim world extremists live and dictators survive off the back of the fear and division between Shi’a and Sunni. Those efforts of persuasion that the Foreign Secretary talks about should be aimed not just at political leaders and Governments but at figures of influence on both those sides of Islam. How much effort and influence does he think there is
	and how much of a priority do the British Government give to trying to encourage reconciliation and co-operation from religious figures of influence, both Shi’a and Sunni?

William Hague: We give that a very high priority, but these events show that we cannot do too much and that we might need to do a lot more over the coming months and years. We give it a high priority and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi has done a great deal of work on it as part of her work on freedom of religion, which is also about bringing different religious leaders together. Our embassies across the middle east do a great deal of work as well. The right hon. Gentleman is right that this is not just about political leaders; it is about religious leaders and other leading figures in society in many of the countries concerned. We have insisted all along that the Syrian national coalition must represent religious reconciliation and people of all faiths in Syria. I think the answer is that we do a great deal, but we must acknowledge that more will need to be done.

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate the Front-Bench team and their counterparts in the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Justice on the work they have done over the past four years to promote women’s rights across the globe. I am saddened that, as momentum behind the issues has grown, some of the media have chosen to belittle the contribution of Angelina Jolie at the recent conference rather than focus on the issues that she cares about. In the light of that, what would my right hon. Friend’s advice be to Bono?

William Hague: I hesitate to give advice to Bono, but it is nevertheless important for us to ensure that this work reaches all parts of the world. It is vital work, as my hon. Friend describes. Governments cannot reach all opinion formers everywhere in the world and so the contribution of my co-host at the sexual violence summit, Angelina Jolie, is immense in getting the message across to countries that would never otherwise hear about the work or never necessarily take any interest in the summit that we held. I advise everyone to take full heed of that work and give it full support as that is the only way to tackle some of the worst crimes that we are seeing anywhere in the world.

Meg Munn: The recent advance of ISIS—the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham—might have been a shock, but the reality is that hundreds of people have been dying in terrorist attacks in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq for many months. That is a result of the breakdown of the situation and the civil war in Syria. The signal given last summer by this House, and by the United States and the international community, created the space into which ISIS has now pushed forward. What is going to change, and how is the international community going to turn this round?

William Hague: Clearly we have to do what I set out in my statement. The House of Commons cannot re-fight its earlier decisions. I disagreed with the decision made in the House last August, but we are democratic politicians and we respect the House’s decision on that occasion. If we had voted the other way, would it have sent a sharp message to the Assad regime? Yes it would, but we did
	not vote in that way. This House makes the decisions on those matters, and we work within the constraints of that. I have made it clear that we can provide assistance to the Iraqi Government—the United States might be able to provide a great deal of other assistance—while simultaneously stressing that Government’s own heavy responsibility to rise to the challenge in both the security and the political sense.

Julian Huppert: I was one of the 1 million who marched against the war in Iraq, although we were ignored by the Government of the time. I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comment that he is not planning military intervention by the UK. I and many others will keep track of what happens in that regard. What steps will he take to ensure that Prime Minister Maliki does not use this crisis to try to extend his executive power in inappropriate ways?

William Hague: Inclusive politics and a more inclusive political leadership in Iraq would not involve the abuse of power by the Prime Minister of the day, and it would have to include some degree of people not only working together in government but genuinely sharing power. Otherwise, it would not work. It would be built into a broader political unity in Iraq that Sunnis and Kurds would be well consulted and have leadership positions in the political process, but it would be up to them to determine the details of that.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent destruction of all the structures of civil society there have led to this implosion? Does he also accept that the current crisis is being exacerbated by the arms in the region? He has confirmed that there will be no military intervention by Britain or the USA, but what discussions has he had with Saudi Arabia about its influence, its arms supplies and its friendships within the region, and about its actual aims?

William Hague: We have had many discussions with states throughout the region, particularly in relation to Syria. We have said that any support, including the non-lethal support from the United Kingdom, should be given to moderate groupings and not to extremists. Indeed, these events underline the importance of that, and it is something that we will always restate to Saudi Arabia and to other states in the region. They are committed to not supporting extremist groups, because those groups ultimately present a threat to them as well as to Iraq and to many people in Syria. On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I think we will have to wait for the report from the inquiry into Iraq. People can argue the case either way in regard to the consequences of the 2003 invasion, but it is worth pointing out that if Iraq had developed a more inclusive politics over recent years and if the Assad regime had not opted to wage war against its own people, the scenario would now be very different, notwithstanding the 2003 invasion.

James Paice: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the leadership that he showed during last week’s conference on preventing sexual violence in conflict? That is a major issue, but it is one that many
	people—dare I say it, many men—have avoided addressing. My right hon. Friend deserves congratulation on addressing it. Will he take this opportunity to challenge media commentators who have suggested over the past few days that it is a relatively minor issue compared with the issues of Iraq that we have just been discussing? Does he not agree that, in many ways, they are two sides of the same coin and that the fundamental belief that women are second-class citizens lies at the heart of the use of sexual violence in conflict and at the heart of the beliefs of most of the extreme terrorist organisations?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There are reports from Iraq of sexual violence, and as I mentioned in my statement, in Nigeria extremist terrorist groups are some of the main perpetrators of appalling sexual violence against those in their captivity. This is not only a vital moral issue for the world—we have been right to break the taboo in many parts of the world about discussing it. It is also fundamentally connected to conflict prevention. When mass war-zone rape is committed by one community against another, it becomes dramatically more difficult to prevent conflict between them for decades into the future. I think that in some quarters there is a good deal of ignorance about those matters.

Keith Vaz: I join others in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his role in initiating the conference. My concern is with Iraq and the huge number of people who will now be leaving or attempting to leave because of the current crisis. Many of those people will be at the hands of people traffickers who will exploit them, and they will end up on the borders of Greece and Turkey. What support can we give those countries, and what steps can we take to help authorities in Iraq to stop people leaving?

William Hague: As I set out in my statement, we are giving rapid assistance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development authorised that quickly at the weekend, and is ready with further assistance if it becomes necessary. We are already generous donors to many other countries in the region that are dealing with huge refugee flows, particularly Lebanon and Jordan, and through UN agencies we are also assisting with refugee flows in Turkey and the area of the Kurdistan regional Government. After the United States, Britain is the second most substantial national donor in the world to programmes for refugees in the region, and the right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we will maintain that strong record.

James Morris: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that whatever the historic failings of western policy, we cannot simply stand aside as the viability of the Iraqi state is called into question? Do we not have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to ensure that their country does not descend into all-out sectarian violence, which in any event would be completely against our national interests in the middle east?

William Hague: I am certainly not advocating standing aside, and I have set out what we are doing politically and in terms of humanitarian aid and assistance to the
	Iraqis. There is no question of our standing aside from such a crisis, but we should be clear—I think we have been clear across the House today—that there is prime responsibility on leaders in the region, including Iraq, to ensure a coherent security and political response. It is within their power to do so, and it is therefore their prime responsibility to do so, with our support where necessary.

Ann Clwyd: It was a privilege to meet some of the brave women who came to give evidence at the conference last week, particularly those from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It was ironic, however, that at the same time as the conference was going on, women were being raped in Iraq. There is no doubt from UN reports about the behaviour of ISIS in Iraq, which is threatening sharia law and carrying out extreme sharia law. Will the Foreign Secretary make clear that people who are found guilty of those crimes will face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that they will not get away with it?

William Hague: It is clear in the declaration on ending sexual violence in conflict, which I put forward and which 155 nations have now signed, that these crimes are to be considered grave breaches of the Geneva conventions. Much of what we are doing, as the right hon. Lady knows, is to make sure that the era of impunity for these things is over, and that prosecutions can take place and that evidence can be more easily gathered. If we do not do that, the problem will get worse in the world over the coming years. I very much agree with the thrust of her question; it is at the very top of the priorities of the preventing sexual violence initiative.

Tobias Ellwood: Would it not be wise for Tony Blair to be a bit more Trappist about this issue, at least until the Chilcot inquiry reports, rather than trying to re-write history by attempting to say that the shambles of an occupation that we saw is somehow not linked to the tragic events that we see today? Is it not the case that in 2003 al-Qaeda was not present in Iraq? A vacuum of governance was caused and that was filled. That is something that, sadly, the Iraqi Prime Minister has failed to meet.

William Hague: I will add Tony Blair, with Bono, to the list of people whom I will not advise on what to say during the course of our proceedings. There will be many important lessons that are best looked at when we have all the evidence of the inquiry. We are very clear on what is needed now in Iraq and in neighbouring states to respond to this situation, and for the moment we must focus on encouraging that correct response.

John Denham: Will the Foreign Secretary, with his emphasis on looking to responsibilities within the region, say a little more about the role of Saudi Arabia? Have not few countries done as much as Saudi Arabia to promote a sectarian and deeply conservative brand of Islam right around the world, including in the middle east? It and other conservative Gulf states stay high on the list of diplomatic friends of our Government. If we are to speak truth to power, why do we not challenge those who have helped foster the sectarianism that we now see?

William Hague: The position among regional states is a complex one. Saudi Arabia has often acted with us in the past to try to ensure that there is stability in the region, and it is important to bear that in mind. I stress again that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and many across the House that there is a responsibility on all leading states in the region to improve relations and to try to ensure that religions can co-exist side by side. There is a huge responsibility on Iran in particular, as I mentioned earlier, but of course there is a responsibility on Gulf states and others as well, and we will make that very clear.

Crispin Blunt: In his reply to the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend talked about all those who support Iraq. With Maliki running a sectarian Government, with the Kurds taking the opportunity to seize Kirkuk, which will always be one of the very difficult post-conflict issues to solve, and with the Sunni population turning to this dreadful mediaeval force, is not the problem that, frankly, not many people support the concept of Iraq? Is it not about time that we started pushing for an international conference to bring all the actors together so that we can have a strategy that can lead to an agreed post-Iraq solution?

William Hague: I do not exclude at all the need for international conferences to try to bring together all the countries in the region, as well as key players in Iraq. My hon. Friend is right to point to the formidable difficulties facing those who need to work together in Iraq. However, underneath that there is tremendous support among the people of Iraq for the functioning of their country. They have turned out in very large numbers in elections. They have made every effort to participate in their democracy, and I believe that the mass of the people in Iraq want that democracy to succeed. Their leaders, as in any country, need to respond to that and harness that.

Emily Thornberry: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the second part of his statement? Does he share my alarm about the reports of increasing numbers of Tamil asylum refugees being refused asylum status despite entirely credible accounts of being subjected to rape by the security services? Will he please give an undertaking to the House that the Foreign Office will look again at the country profiles on which the Home Office and the courts rely before making decisions in those cases, particularly highlighting the problems in relation to women being raped?

William Hague: There have been major problems of sexual violence in Sri Lanka. I spoke about this to the Sri Lankan media and with the many NGOs that I worked when I was at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka in November. In this country we take our responsibilities to asylum seekers very seriously, as the hon. Lady knows, but in a strict and, we hope, fair system. Where there are serious and valid complaints, of course they will be looked at. As she knows, this matter is primarily the Home Secretary’s responsibility, not mine, so either I or a Home Office Minister will write to the hon. Lady about that point.

David Rutley: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. What steps—diplomatic action in particular—are being taken by the UK and other nations to improve the degree of engagement between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Iraqi Government?

William Hague: This is an important issue, as we noted earlier. Through all our diplomatic channels and through my conversations with the relevant leaders, we encourage that co-operation between the Iraqi authorities in Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government. I discussed this at length with the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the KRG a few weeks ago. I discussed it with the Iraqi Foreign Minister just yesterday, and we will continue in that vein.

Paul Flynn: Did not the vote of 29 August last year prove that the trust of many Members of this House in military action has been deeply undermined by the terrible decision that we took in 2003 to send 179 brave British soldiers to their deaths in Iraq on the basis of untruths and the hubris and vanity of a Prime Minister? Will not that trust be further undermined if the Chilcot report is expurgated—if it omits the full text of the letters from Tony Blair and George Bush—and will it not be seen as an establishment cover-up by politicians and civil servants to guard their reputations?

William Hague: I am sure there will be an occasion to debate that report when it is available. The hon. Gentleman and all of us will be able to give our views then. I think it is true that the vote in the House last August was influenced by a loss of trust in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, whatever side we took and whatever we think about that. It was influenced by that, yes, so we have to conduct ourselves in a way that rebuilds trust in Government decisions on these matters. That is what we are constantly seeking to do.

Rehman Chishti: It is said that the international community wants to engage Iran to help resolve the situation in Iraq, but some ask how that can possibly be the case when Iran is supporting terrorism in Lebanon by Hezbollah, supporting Hamas and supporting the horrific regime of President Assad, and when it backed Prime Minister Maliki to cause the mess in Iraq in the first place. Linked to that, what steps are we taking to address the problem that the advanced-level weapons given to the Iraqi army by the international community are ending up in the hands of the extremists?

William Hague: The point that my hon. Friend raises is exactly why I have stressed several times that although it is right to engage Iran, which we are doing, we need to see a change in Iranian policies if the Iranians are to promote stability rather than instability in the region. They do support sectarian or terrorist groups and have supported them elsewhere in the region. That is an important policy to change because it creates deep divisions across the middle east, and I again stress that we look to Iran to change those policies.

John McDonnell: I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has said on several occasions that the Government are not planning
	any military intervention. Can I be absolutely assured that there will be no military intervention by this Government, or support by this Government for others’ military intervention, without a vote of this House? On the second part of his statement, with regard to sexual violence, will he look at reports that women who have come to this country seeking asylum from areas of conflict have been detained in Yarl’s Wool, where they have been subjected to sexual abuse?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman’s second point is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I will of course draw it to her attention. We have a clear precedent established about coming to the House, when circumstances permit, in relation to the use of military force. We did that over Syria, even though we were then defeated. The hon. Gentleman is trying to extend that precedent to support for other states taking military action. This House does not govern actions taken by other states. The Government will of course always come to explain our diplomatic posture on all those things.

Ben Wallace: In the post-Iraq and post-Afghanistan conferences, and in the Syria peace conferences, Iran was consistently left off the guest list. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that what we are seeing in Iraq is the inevitable outcome of our picking and choosing our regional players and leaving Iran off the guest lists? In future we should learn the lesson and invite all sides to try to resolve these issues, especially those that live closest and suffer the greatest threat through such conflict.

William Hague: My hon. Friend must bear in mind that there is also a lesson for those not invited. In the case of the unsuccessful Geneva peace conference that we held earlier this year on Syria, we and others were entirely open to the inclusion of Iran. We only wanted to know that Iran would support the creation of a transitional Government in Syria as a solution to the problem, in the same way that Russia has done through its support for the Geneva 2012 declaration. That was quite a small requirement for adding it to the guest list, but Iran was unable to do that. The effort has to come from Iran as well as from the rest of us.

Caroline Lucas: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his important conference last week. However, while I recognise that real progress is being made in conflict zones, it is a very different story when the same survivors of rape make it to UK shores. Will he add to the list of things to raise with the Home Secretary a more systemic concern about our asylum system, which often punishes and humiliates women a second time when they arrive? They are expected to talk to men, often on their own or in front of their children. It really is not a sensitive way forward.

William Hague: I will add that to the list, but I hope that the hon. Lady will also bear in mind that the Home Secretary said in her recent announcements on admitting Syrian refugees into the UK that we would give particular priority to people who are vulnerable and at risk of
	violence, including sexual violence, so it is clear that the Government are attempting to assist in such cases, but where there is criticism we will examine it and respond to it.

Paul Uppal: I take on board my right hon. Friend’s point, made in answer to previous questions, that in the here and now we can cajole through the diplomatic avenues. We can also make it clear to everybody involved that it is in their best interests. But does he agree that actually the real issue is good governance? We have a history in this country, through Northern Ireland—of course, that is a different political prism—of bringing an approach of consensual politics to such matters. This is very similar to corruption: we need to break the cycle. Do not do unto others as has been done unto me.

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point, and I hope that it will be well heeded far beyond this House.

Tom Blenkinsop: The EU Enlargement Commissioner is scheduled to hold talks with the Turkish President and Foreign Minister. No doubt the capture of Turkish diplomats in Mosul last week will be raised. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the more secular yet Sunni Turkish Government about the security situation in Iraq?

William Hague: I regularly discuss the situation in Iraq with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, most recently on Saturday, when I expressed our concern about the Turkish nationals who have now been taken hostage by ISIL. We of course hope for their safe return and are consulting closely with Turkey about the whole situation we have been discussing in the House today.

Jason McCartney: My right hon. Friend says that he is keeping open the possibility of offering counter-terrorism expertise. Another area in which we have particular expertise is aerial reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence gathering. Is he therefore keeping open the option of offering Royal Air Force ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—assets?

William Hague: What my hon. Friend mentions would count as a military intervention, and we are not planning military intervention in Iraq in this situation, as I have made clear; while I have taken care not to rule out the things that could happen in a whole variety of situations in future, I think that I have made that very clear today.

Dan Jarvis: One of the many worrying aspects of recent events is that the Iraqi army and other security forces do not appear to have performed well. Of course, this is not just about military capability; it has much to do with the political decisions taken by the Iraqi Government. Looking ahead to the end of our operational commitment in Afghanistan at the end of this year, what is the Foreign Secretary doing to satisfy himself that the Afghan national security forces have the confidence and the capability needed to avoid a similar situation in Afghanistan?

William Hague: This is a very important question. Of course, every quarter we have an oral statement on Afghanistan, and this will be an important topic for the next one. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken every care to build up and train the Afghan national security forces. They have acquitted themselves very well in conflict in Afghanistan over the past year or two, having led all major operations in recent times themselves. I hope that the new President of Afghanistan, for whom elections took place this weekend, will sign the bilateral security agreement with the United States that will enable all of us to settle how we support the Afghan state in the future. There is further work to be done on this, but the Afghan national security forces are extremely strong and capable.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the removal of Saddam, which, as the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) said, prevented the Kurdish nation from being exterminated, is not the sole cause of the current crisis? Is it not more the problems in Syria, and the weakness and inadequacy of the Iraqi President, that have led to Islamic jihadists launching a campaign from Syria? Does he not also agree that if the crisis gets worse, at some point NATO and the United States will have to intervene militarily to put a lid on the problem and protect the Kurdistan region?

William Hague: On the last point, the United States has said that it is examining all options. I think that the necessary support for the Iraqi security forces is much more likely to be given by the United States than by NATO as a whole. My hon. Friend is quite right about many of the other massive contributory factors. Whatever people think, with hindsight, of the merits or otherwise of the 2003 invasion, recent events in Syria and the failure in Iraq to develop a fully inclusive politics have certainly contributed to this situation.

Jonathan Edwards: Given that the Foreign Secretary now finds himself dealing with a major crisis in Iraq, does he share my regret that the Chilcot inquiry has not published its report? If it had, his foreign policy would benefit from a detailed analysis of events before, during and, critically, after the last Gulf war.

William Hague: Yes, in many ways, because I think it was 2006 when, as shadow Foreign Secretary, I first proposed an inquiry on Iraq. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman’s party supported that at the time; I am sure that it did. Perhaps it even called for an inquiry before then. Had the inquiry been established then, rather than being resisted by the then Government for a good two years, we would certainly have had the result by now.

Philip Hollobone: Why does the speed and extent of the success so far of the caliphate forces seem to have taken everyone by surprise?

William Hague: I think that it has taken people by surprise, including in Baghdad, because of the failure of Iraqi security forces—large numbers of them—to hold the territory to which they were assigned. That, of course, is very disappointing and alarming, and it underlines the need for the Iraqi security forces to be well led, to work together well, and to be backed by political unity. I think that is the answer to my hon. Friend’s question.

Jonathan Ashworth: What discussions were held at the summit with regard to Sri Lanka? In the past 24 hours, a number of my Muslim constituents of Sri Lankan origin have got in touch because they are deeply fearful for the lives of many of their relatives in Sri Lanka, who are under threat from the sectarianism of the extremist Bodu Bala Sena group. What advice does the Foreign Secretary have for my constituents and what pressure can he put on the Sri Lankan Government?

William Hague: Of course, we regularly try to put pressure on the Sri Lankan Government. The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to tell the House how much we look to them to prevent sectarian conflict and outrages within Sri Lanka, just as we look to any Government responsible for their own citizens to do the same. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the UK led the way, successfully, at the United Nations Human Rights Council in March to win the vote on setting up an international inquiry into the conflict in Sri Lanka. We are always leading the way on this and I join the hon. Gentleman in reiterating our strong message of concern about these events.

Eleanor Laing: The prize for patience goes to Mr John Woodcock.

John Woodcock: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Whatever the responsibility the UK holds for the current situation in Iraq, there is a clear need to prevent the country from falling into the hands of these extremists. Given the Foreign Secretary’s statement that military intervention may well prove necessary, why has he ruled out any UK participation or military support whatsoever?

William Hague: For the reasons I set out in my statement, the prime need is for the leadership in Iraq—in both a security and a political sense—to be able to respond. There is a case for outside support where necessary, but as I said, the assets and capabilities to deliver such military support are much more likely to be possessed by the United States of America. I have set out other areas in which we can help. That is the reasoning for this approach.

Eleanor Laing: We appreciate that that statement took a very long time—longer than usual—but the House is grateful to the Foreign Secretary, as those were two very important issues on which many Members wished to asked questions.

Consumer Rights Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.

New Clause 24
	 — 
	Duty of letting agents to publicise fees

‘(1) A letting agent must, in accordance with this section, publicise details of the agent’s relevant fees.
	(2) The agent must display a list of the fees—
	(a) at each of the agent’s premises at which the agent deals face-to-face with persons using or proposing to use services to which the fees relate, and
	(b) at a place in each of those premises at which the list is likely to be seen by such persons.
	(3) The agent must publish a list of the fees on the agent’s website (if it has a website).
	(4) A list of fees displayed or published in accordance with subsection (2) or (3) must include—
	(a) a description of each fee that is sufficient to enable a person who is liable to pay it to understand the service or cost that is covered by the fee or the purpose for which it is imposed (as the case may be),
	(b) in the case of a fee which tenants are liable to pay, an indication of whether the fee relates to each dwelling-house or each tenant under a tenancy of the dwelling-house, and
	(c) the amount of each fee inclusive of any applicable tax or, where the amount of a fee cannot reasonably be determined in advance, a description of how that fee is calculated.
	(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify—
	(a) other ways in which a letting agent must publicise details of the relevant fees charged by the agent;
	(b) the details that must be given of fees publicised in that way.’—(Jenny Willott.)
	This new Clause requires letting agents to publish a list of their fees and provides for where and how this must be done. The Secretary of State may also make regulations about what must be published and where.
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Jennifer Willott: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 25—Letting agents to which the duty applies.
	Government new clause 26—Fees to which the duty applies.
	Government new clause 27—Letting agency work and property management work.
	Government new clause 28—Enforcement of the duty.
	Government new clause 29—Supplementary provisions.
	New clause 30—Letting Agents: Report—
	‘Within three months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a report, and lay a copy of the report before Parliament, on—
	(a) the consumer detriment caused to tenants by letting agent fees and the impact this has on the ability of tenants to secure and maintain tenancies, and
	(b) the steps that the government intends to take to prohibit fees that cause detriment to tenants.’
	Government amendment 23.

Jennifer Willott: We know that consumers in the private rented sector are especially concerned about the fees charged by letting agents, particularly when they are unexpected or unreasonably high. There are calls for a ban on letting agents charging fees to tenants, but I am concerned, as we discussed on the previous debate on Report, that an outright ban would simply increase the pressure on rents. Making agents publish their fees is a better approach, giving consumers the information they want and supporting good letting agents. Such transparency would deter double charging and enable tenants and landlords to shop around, which would encourage agents to offer competitive fees.
	The vast majority of letting agents provide a good service to tenants and landlords, but we are determined to tackle the minority of rogue agents who offer a poor service. Although good agents already make information about their fees and charges readily available, the new clause will introduce, for the first time, a financial penalty when an agent fails to display their fees. We are introducing legislation that will require all letting agents and property managers to belong to an approved redress scheme. That will give tenants an effective way to address complaints about fees, as well as, more generally, when the tenant is not happy with the agent’s performance.

Stella Creasy: It is a pleasure to see the debate on the Consumer Rights Bill come back to the House because many Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the impact of what the Minister calls unreasonably high fees. In relation to the Government’s proposal and our entirely reasonable new clause, the challenge for us all is to understand quite what damage such fees do to the private rented sector and how we can address those fees to give us a fair market in private rented accommodation.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have now understood the case that the Opposition have been making, which is that we cannot ignore—try though the Government have in previous debates—the 9 million people in the private rented sector in this country. In particular, we must understand the impact of agency fees on people’s ability to keep a roof over their head, so it is worth thinking what kind of fees we are talking about. The Minister did not go into much detail, but it is worth reminding Members in the Chamber about the fees.
	On average, tenants are forced to pay letting agents about £355 every single time they move. Indeed, some mystery shopping in my constituency has found average fees of £450, and Shelter has identified the eye-watering figure of £700 in total agency fees. Shelter has certainly found that one in seven of those using an agency is charged more than £500 a time, meaning that people have to find £500 every single time they move. That is a considerable sum, before we even consider the deposit and the rent. Such fees are putting huge pressure on people in the private rented sector, particularly in relation to their ability to make ends meet. Shelter’s research shows that 27% of those who have used a letting agency in the past three years have had to borrow or use a loan
	to pay the fees, and that 17% have had to cut down their spending on basic essentials, such as food or heating, to be able to cover them.
	For the first day on Report, we tabled an amendment to recognise that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for an agent to take money from both the tenant and the landlord for the same transaction, and therefore to ban the laying of fees on tenants. In doing so, we were learning from the experience in Scotland. The Minister said, as she has again today, that banning fees will not make it cheaper for tenants, who will just end up paying higher rents through up-front fees.
	In responding to our new clause 30, I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to tell us what she takes from the research done in Scotland, where such a provision was made in 2012, because the research shows that the reverse is true—that there is no evidence that banning agency fees leads to an increase in rents. Indeed, fewer than one in five letting agencies interviewed in Shelter’s research said that it had increased fees to landlords. In fact, taking away the conflict of interest has had no impact on the market, but has done everything to help on the cost of housing.
	I note the comments by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has admitted that there is a problem with fees and has said that there is an issue about the length of tenancies. The Opposition have been making those arguments for some time. In relation to the Government new clauses, what is it about our arguments and the evidence—that taking away fees does not increase rents, but makes renting a home more affordable for people—that explains why the Government have not as yet fully come over to our side of the argument.
	The Government new clauses include some admirable claims about transparency. We certainly support the idea that it is important for tenants to be aware of the fees that they might be charged. However, I have several questions about how the new clauses are drafted, because it is not clear how they will work in practice. I am sure that she would argue that all her proposed new clauses must work in practice, not just in principle.
	One new clause mentions that the description of a fee must be understandable, but will the Minister clarify quite what that means? Will she require agents to break fees down and, for example, to say whether they will charge for a credit check and for an inventory fee, as often happens? In my constituency, I have seen tenants charged a pet fee, so will there be a description of all the fees that might possibly be applied?
	What does the Minister mean by “likely to be seen”? We have seen examples of agencies putting a list of their fees in the toilets of their offices for tenants to read. Under the Bill, would that be considered a place where such a list is likely to be seen? What redress would a tenant have if they had not had cause to use the facilities of a letting agency and had therefore not seen the information?
	Most crucially, fees are often charged not just when a tenancy is first signed, but when it is repeated. What will the Minister do about the repeat application of fees? She will recall that, in the last debate on Report, we discussed a tenant who had tweeted us live to say that they had been charged £1,300 to change the names on a
	tenancy. The Government new clauses do not recognise that fees are applied not just when a tenancy is started, but when it is renewed.

Robert Flello: I came across a case recently in which a tenancy was repeated. All that happened was that a copy of the original agreement was reprinted and sent off to be signed. There was all of about 30 pages of printing, which, even at the most expensive local high street printing outfit, would not amount to anywhere near the couple of hundred pounds that the agency was charging for that simple job.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the kind of repeat fees we are seeing, which any legislation must address. More importantly—this relates to the proposals that we have made—I would wager that the landlord was also charged in that transaction for the same amount of photocopying. Fees are clearly being charged when a contract is repeated and that needs to be addressed.
	New clause 24 talks about how a fee can be calculated if the amount is not yet known. Will the Minister set out what protection will be available to consumers if they miscalculate the amount based on the information that is provided? How clear does the information of the letting agency have to be?
	All of the issues that I have raised relate to enforcement. New clause 28 provides the power to impose a £5,000 penalty. It would be very interesting to hear what kind of enforcement process the Minister envisages. We talked in Committee about the cuts to trading standards—the Cinderella service that does not even have enough buttons at the moment to address the many issues the Government expect it to address under the consumer rights legislation.
	The Minister talked in passing about the letting agent redress scheme. I must pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Hayter, who argued passionately for the redress scheme because of her experience of these issues. It is not clear to the Opposition quite what will happen. Will the Minister therefore set out what she thinks will happen if an agent does not display their fees clearly and what kind of enforcement action will be taken? She talked about issuing civil penalties. Will those penalties go to the tenant who has had to pay £1,300 for the photocopying to be repeated, but who was not told about that when they signed up to the letting agency?
	All those questions speak to the fundamental challenge that we are dealing with, which is that information, although welcome, is not enough to deal with the fundamental problem of the impact that excessively high agency fees have on a person’s ability to rent a property. As we said in the previous debate on Report, it is a bit like telling someone who is tied to the train tracks what the timetable is for the trains. The fundamental issue that we have to deal with is the consequence of agents being able to charge tenants such fees.
	That is why we tabled new clause 30. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is an entirely reasonable response to the Government new clauses. New clause 30 would do two things. First, it would require the Government to produce a report on
	“the consumer detriment caused to tenants by letting agent fees and the impact this has on the ability of tenants to secure and maintain tenancies”.
	I am sure that everybody in the House would welcome such a report, because it would at least give some depth to the conversations that we have all been having about this issue. Secondly, it would commit the Government to taking action to
	“prohibit fees that cause detriment to tenants.”
	Surely, if fees are pushing people out of their homes and distorting the market in private rented accommodation, it is in the interests of all consumers and, indeed, landlords that we act.
	I hope that the Minister will accept new clause 30 and commit the Government to truly tackling the issues in the private rented sector, including the impact of agency fees. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is not here because he, too, has argued that banning agency fees would somehow lead to higher rents. I look forward to the Minister responding to all those tenants in Scotland who have not found the banning of fees to be a negative experience. What does she think we can learn from that experience?
	If the Minister does not yet accept the case for banning fees outright, does she accept that there are fees that can be detrimental and that it is appropriate for the Government to intervene? Alternatively, is she simply saying that if a letting agency wants to charge somebody £700 a time to renew their tenancy, it is fine, as long as they have told them about it? I am sure that is not her intention and that she recognises that people do not shop around for a letting agency: they shop around for a property to try to keep a roof above their families’ heads. Because such costs cause detriment to consumers, they are unacceptable. If the Minister does not accept that they cause detriment, I hope that she will at least accept our amendment that would provide that the Government should carry out research on this issue and commit to action if detriment is proved. Nine million people are waiting on the Minister’s every move to see whether they can keep a roof above their heads, not just in 2014 but in 2015 and beyond. Should we win the next election, we will take action if the Government will not do so now.

Jennifer Willott: The irony of the hon. Lady’s last sentence is astounding, given that the Government are legislating to tackle this issue, but the previous Labour Government did not. The issue has not suddenly arisen in the last three years, and the Government have committed to tackling the minority of rogue landlords, something that her party did not do.
	We are taking action to ensure that tenants have proper redress and a fair deal. We recognise that there are real issues with a minority of rogue landlords who do not treat tenants fairly, and that is why we are taking action. Today, we are ensuring transparency and openness on fees so that landlords and tenants can shop around. The hon. Lady mentioned the experience in Scotland and the recent Shelter report on the impact of banning fees. However, concerns have been raised that the Shelter report ignores the widespread non-compliance with the ban in Scotland. I have seen an estimate that some 25% of firms are still charging admin fees for tenants who move in, and a higher proportion are still charging other fees during the tenancy.
	As the hon. Lady said, those agents that are complying have got around the fact that they cannot charge fees to tenants by, for example, raising landlords’ fees, but that
	has had an impact on rents in certain areas. Landlords are not absorbing the increase in fees, but passing it on to tenants through the rent. For example, in Edinburgh, rents went up by more than 5% and in Aberdeen by more than 6%—significantly higher increases than in England and Wales. The evidence is that the introduction of the ban north of the border has had a significant negative impact on tenants.

Stella Creasy: Can the Minister clarify that she disputes what Shelter has said—that any increase in rent is not related to the banning of agency fees—or that she has her own research? She is telling a very different story from the evidence of the research conducted by Shelter in Scotland, and the House may be confused by what she is saying as a result.

Jennifer Willott: I have made it clear that we have concerns about the Shelter report because, for example, it ignores the widespread non-compliance that I mentioned. The evidence on rents is that they have risen faster in Scotland than they have in England and Wales.
	The hon. Lady raised some questions about how fees would need to be broken down and what evidence would need to be provided. The regulations will make that clear. For example, a general administration fee would need to be broken down to show exactly what it covered. That information will therefore be available to tenants. The hon. Lady also asked whether repeat fees would be covered, and I can confirm that the fees associated with property management would also be covered, so they would need to be provided and published.
	The hon. Lady asked how the provisions would operate. The Bill provides a power, and we will consult on and publish secondary legislation to ensure that the provision is as tight as it can be. We will ensure that information is available to tenants and landlords so that they can make a judgment on the most appropriate agent for their business. The legislation will be enforced by local authorities as they are involved in the licensing of landlords and also have the local knowledge about the agencies in their area. They are the ones in the best place to enforce it and to ensure it is operating in the best interests of tenants.
	Finally, we have said that we will review it after a year of operation to see how it is working and to ensure that it has made a difference to tenants. We do not want rents to go up, as that would cause widespread problems for, as the hon. Lady says, the large number of people who rent in the private sector. We want to protect those tenants. We do not want their rents to go up; we want them instead to get a fair deal from agencies and to be able to see what the charges are. We want openness and proper redress in place to ensure they receive a fair deal.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 24 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25
	 — 
	Letting agents to which the duty applies

‘(1) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) “letting agent” means a person who engages in letting agency work (whether or not that person engages in other work).
	(2) A person is not a letting agent for the purposes of sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) if the person engages in letting agency work in the course of that person’s employment under a contract of employment.
	(3) A person is not a letting agent for the purposes of sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) if—
	(a) the person is of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
	(b) the person engages in work of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”—(Jenny Willott.)
	This new Clause provides that the duty applies to a person who engages in letting agency work. Employees are exempt from the duty. The Secretary of State may make regulations exempting other persons or types of work.

New Clause 26
	 — 
	Fees to which the duty applies

‘(1) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) “relevant fees”, in relation to a letting agent, means the fees, charges or penalties (however expressed) payable to the agent by a landlord or tenant—
	(a) in respect of letting agency work carried on by the agent,
	(b) in respect of property management work carried on by the agent, or
	(c) otherwise in connection with—
	(i) an assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England, or
	(ii) a dwelling-house in England that is, has been or is proposed to be let under an assured tenancy.
	(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
	(a) the rent payable to a landlord under a tenancy,
	(b) any fees, charges or penalties which the letting agent receives from a landlord under a tenancy on behalf of another person,
	(c) a tenancy deposit within the meaning of section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004, or
	(d) any fees, charges or penalties of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.” —(Jenny Willott.)
	This new Clause provides that the duty applies to fees payable in respect of letting agency work, property management work and other work done in connection with assured tenancies. The clause provides that certain payments are not fees for the purposes of the duty. The Secretary of State may make regulations to exempt other payments.

New Clause 27
	 — 
	Letting agency work and property management work

‘(1) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) “letting agency work” means things done by a person in the course of a business in response to instructions received from—
	(a) a person (“a prospective landlord”) seeking to find another person wishing to rent a dwelling-house in England under an assured tenancy and, having found such a person, to grant such a tenancy, or
	(b) a person (“a prospective tenant”) seeking to find a dwelling-house in England to rent under an assured tenancy and, having found such a dwelling-house, to obtain such a tenancy of it.
	(2) But “letting agency work” does not include any of the following things when done by a person who does nothing else within subsection (1)—
	(a) publishing advertisements or disseminating information;
	(b) providing a means by which a prospective landlord or a prospective tenant can, in response to an advertisement or dissemination of information, make direct contact with a prospective tenant or a prospective landlord;
	(c) providing a means by which a prospective landlord and a prospective tenant can communicate directly with each other.
	(3) “Letting agency work” also does not include things done by a local authority.
	(4) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) “property management work”, in relation to a letting agent, means things done by the agent in the course of a business in response to instructions received from another person where—
	(a) that person wishes the agent to arrange services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance in respect of, or to deal with any other aspect of the management of, premises in England on the person’s behalf, and
	(b) the premises consist of a dwelling-house let under an assured tenancy.”—(Jenny Willott.)
	This new Clause defines letting agency work and property management work. It provides that letting agency work does not include publishing advertisements, enabling landlords and tenants to communicate directly with one another or things done by a local authority.

New Clause 28
	 — 
	Enforcement of the duty

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
	(a) impose functions on a local authority in connection with the enforcement of the duty in section (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees);
	(b) make provision for civil penalties to be imposed in respect of a breach of that duty.
	(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may provide for the amount of a civil penalty to be determined by the person imposing it, subject to subsection (3).
	(3) The amount of a civil penalty that a person may impose by virtue of regulations under subsection (1)(b) may not exceed £5,000 for each breach of the duty in section (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees).
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the figure for the time being specified in subsection (3).
	(5) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) must make provision about the procedure for imposing a civil penalty and, in particular, must require a person imposing a penalty to give the person on whom it is imposed a written notice stating—
	(a) the amount of the penalty,
	(b) the reasons for imposing it, and
	(c) the date by which and manner in which it is to be paid.
	(6) Regulations under subsection (1)(b)—
	(a) may give a person on whom a civil penalty is imposed a right to request a review of the decision to impose the penalty, and
	(b) must give such a person a right to appeal against the decision to the First-tier Tribunal.
	(7) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) must, in particular, specify the grounds on which a person may appeal against a decision to impose a civil penalty, which must include the grounds—
	(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact,
	(b) that the decision was wrong in law, and
	(c) that the decision was unreasonable (including that the amount of the penalty is unreasonable).
	(8) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may, in particular—
	(a) specify the time within which a person must request a review of, or appeal against, a decision to impose a civil penalty;
	(b) require a person to request a review before appealing;
	(c) specify the grounds on which a person may request a review;
	(d) make provision about the procedure for a review;
	(e) make further provision about reviews and appeals (including provision as to the powers available on a review or appeal).
	(9) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may make provision about the recovery of a civil penalty, including—
	(a) provision for the person by whom it is imposed to recover the penalty as a civil debt;
	(b) provision for the penalty to be recoverable, on the order of a court, as if payable under a court order.
	(10) Sums received by a local authority under regulations under this section may be used by the authority for the purposes of any of its functions.
	(11) A local authority on whom functions are conferred by regulations under this section must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State about—
	(a) compliance by letting agents with the duty in section (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees);
	(b) the exercise of those functions.” —(Jenny Willott.)
	This new Clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about enforcement of the duty. The penalty for non-compliance will be a civil penalty of up to £5,000. The regulations must provide for a right of appeal against the penalty to the First-tier Tribunal.

New Clause 29
	 — 
	Supplementary provisions

‘(1) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions)—
	“assured tenancy” means a tenancy which is an assured tenancy for the purposes of the Housing Act 1988 except where—
	(a) the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing, or(b) the tenancy is a long lease;
	“dwelling-house” may be a house or part of a house;
	“landlord” includes a person who proposes to be a landlord under a tenancy and a person who has ceased to be a landlord under a tenancy because the tenancy has come to an end;
	“long lease” means a lease which—
	(c) is a long lease for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, or(d) in the case of a shared ownership lease (within the meaning given by section 7(7) of that Act), would be a lease within paragraph (a) of this definition if the tenant’s total share (within the meaning given by that section) were 100%;
	“tenant” includes a person who proposes to be a tenant under a tenancy and a person who has ceased to be a tenant under a tenancy because the tenancy has come to an end.
	(2) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) “local authority” means—
	(a) a county council in England,
	(b) a district council,
	(c) a London borough council,
	(d) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as local authority, or
	(e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
	(3) References in sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) to a tenancy include a proposed tenancy and a tenancy that has come to an end.
	(4) References in sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) to anything which is payable, or which a person is liable to pay, to a letting agent include anything that the letting agent claims a person is liable to pay, regardless of whether the person is in fact liable to pay it.
	(5) Regulations under sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) are to be made by statutory instrument.
	(6) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision)—
	(a) the first regulations to be made under section (Enforcement of the duty)(1)(b), or
	(b) regulations under section (Enforcement of the duty)(4),
	is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) other than one to which subsection (6) applies is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(8) Regulations under sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions)—
	(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
	(b) may make provision generally or in relation to specific cases.
	(9) Regulations under sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) may include incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.”—(Jenny Willott.)
	This new Clause provides definitions of the terms used in the new clauses and sets out the procedures for making regulations.
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30
	 — 
	Letting Agents: Report

Within three months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a report, and lay a copy of the report before Parliament, on—
	(a) the consumer detriment caused to tenants by letting agent fees and the impact this has on the ability of tenants to secure and maintain tenancies, and
	(b) the steps that the government intends to take to prohibit fees that cause detriment to tenants.”—(Stella Creasy.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 204, Noes 259.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair

Stella Creasy: I beg to move amendment 1,page51,line9, at end insert—
	“1A A term which requires a consumer to pay a charge for, or be liable for, an element of a good or service that another party has also been charged for in the course of the same transaction.”

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 2,page51,line15, at end insert—
	“2A A term which relies upon any bill of sale, as defined in section 3 (Construction of Act) of the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882, to reduce the level of consumer protection in relation to contracts concerning consumer credit.”
	Amendment 3,page51,line18, at end insert—
	“3A A term that directly causes financial detriment to the consumer such that it can reasonably be seen to alter the capacity of the consumer to pay the costs of the contract, where the contract is for a financial service.”
	Amendment 4,page53,line2, at end insert—
	“20A A term which either—
	(a) requires or encourages a consumer to contract third party services without informing them of their right to seek independent advice; or
	(b) seeks to limit a consumer’s access to independent advice regarding third party contracts where there is a potential conflict of interest for the third party involved.”
	Amendment 19,page53,line2, at the end insert—
	“20A A term which has the object or effect of permitting a trader to block, restrict or otherwise hinder the access of a consumer to any lawful electronic communications network or electronic communications service on the basis of an unreasonable or unusual definition of ‘internet access’, ‘data’, ‘webaccess’ or similar word or phrase. Nothing in this prohibition shall affect filters for the purpose of child protection. Electronic communications network or electronic communication service shall have the same meaning as in the Communications Act 2003.”
	Amendment (a) to amendment 19, after “trader”, insert
	“engaged in the provision of fixed broadband internet access or mobile internet services.”

Stella Creasy: I shall speak to all the amendments in the group, which are about unfair contract terms. Unfairness is such a central concept to British values, I will wager, that it provides an apt discussion point for this week alone. All the amendments deal with where a market is stacked against one party and, we would argue, both miss out as a result. When service providers exploit a lack of information or collude to distort behaviour, it is not just the public who are badly treated: competition is stifled, creativity and innovation are weakened and, above all, the consumer is ripped off. The amendments thus reflect some of the problems affecting markets that we see in Britain and deal with what more could be done to make a stronger consumer rights framework that would give the public the tools to be able to prevent rather than have to deal with the problems that come from these distorted behaviours. There are four different issues, but we consider them all to be part of the conflicts of interest that cause detriment to the consumer.
	Amendment 1 refers to what we call “double charging”, and particularly the behaviour of estate agents. We all know that buying a house is one of the biggest costs any of us will face in our lifetime. An English man or woman’s home is their castle, but it is often a very expensive one. The cost of buying a house has gone up so substantially in my constituency that it is now 30% more than it was a year ago—a source of extreme concern for many. Indeed, we know that the average home is worth eight times the average wage and that it can take 20 years for a family to save for a deposit. A million homes were bought in the UK last year, and prices have risen across the country by 8%, even if they have not risen as much as in some of our London areas. That is why the Governor of the Bank of England has warned that the biggest risk to the economy stems from the fact that people are getting mortgages—sometimes four or more times their salaries—that they cannot sustain. Housing is indeed a bubble underpinning our economy and leaving it in an incredibly precarious position.
	The Government’s housing Bill will provide 15,000 houses, but people in my constituency know that we need to double that and then some, which is why
	Labour are proposing to build 200,000 houses, getting us closer to where we need to get to in order to deal with the pressures that people are experiencing. This amendment speaks, too, to some of the other charges that people face when buying a property. We may disagree about how many houses need to be built, but I am sure we would all want the housing property market to be as fair and open as possible so that it does not involve more expenses that mean people needing an even higher mortgage or an even higher level of debt—particularly in the form of the personal loans that people are taking out to pay the sort of fees necessary when they start ownership of a new property.
	The amendment would deal with what the property ombudsman has called an “emerging commercial practice”—one that means that people such as estate agents, who benefit from the increase in demand for housing by exploiting the pressure on the country’s housing supply, reap the benefits. The practice involves a contract that we believe is ripping off consumers—both buyers and sellers—and therefore needs addressing. It is called “double charging” if the estate agent applies a fee to both the buyer and the seller of a property on the same transaction.
	Let me explain the problem for the benefit of Members who have not yet observed the practice in their constituencies. It often results from the process of “sale by informal tender”. House owners are asked to accept sealed bids for their properties. Increasingly, estate agents are then charging successful bidders a “finder’s fee”, which, in some cases, is between 2% and 2.5% of the property fee plus VAT. According to the Consumers Association, an estate agent’s commission should normally be between 1% and 2%. Moreover, sellers themselves are paying to market their properties. Buyers must find the cost of the additional fee in order to bid.
	When I challenged estate agents at Douglas Allen in Walthamstow about their behaviour, they admitted openly that they expected buyers to factor the introductory fee into their offers. Sellers do not benefit from the fee that is being offered. They do not gain the benefit of the additional sum that the buyers are paying for their asset—not the estate agent’s asset—but the estate agent does. That the sellers are paying for the privilege of the marketing of their houses in that way only compounds the scam that is affecting too many people in our country.

Andrew McDonald: Is not the ability to charge two parties to a potential transaction nothing less than a direct conflict of interests? It should not be possible to owe a duty to a buyer and a seller in equal measure. An agent has one client, and it must remain that way.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Let me give an example of the way in which this conflict of interests operates in practice. The example was given to us by a young first-time buyer who, because of her restricted ability to buy a property in the area where she wanted to live, accepted that she would have to take part in a “sale by tender” arrangement, and that she would have to pay an introductory fee of 2.5% of the sale price of the property. She made an offer of £258,000 for a house that was well within the guide price, and therefore committed herself to paying about £6,000 in
	fees to the estate agent. Her offer was accepted as the highest offer in the sealed-bid process. She then contacted us to say that her offer had not been accepted by the seller, and the agent was putting pressure on her to up her offer to £262,000. If she did not do so, the property would be put back on the market for another “sale by tender” exercise, because the seller wanted more. That was despite the fact that she was the one who had committed herself to paying the fee that the estate agent wanted to charge.
	Some Members may think that that is an indication of the overheated London housing market, and the fact that house prices in my constituency have risen by 30% reflects that overheating. However, we are hearing about examples of double charging throughout the country. In the north-west, for instance, a gentleman who tried to buy a house for £45,000 was told that, as well as finding the £45,000 and the fee for the conveyancing, he would have to find £2,880 in order to pay the introductory fee to the estate agent. In the south-west, an estate agent wanted an introductory fee of nearly £6,000 plus VAT from someone who wanted to buy a house for £296,000. I must stress that the sellers of the properties, who do not benefit from the additional £6,000, are also paying a fee for the service.
	The Minister had admitted that double charging is a potentially worrying emerging trend which seems to be on the increase, but at every stage in the Bill when we have sought to outlaw this conflict of interests, the Government have voted against our attempts, although the property ombudsman has agreed that the new approach to selling properties
	“can also potentially disadvantage the seller. He”—
	or she—
	“will no doubt have to agree to accept only prospective buyers that follow the agent’s agreement with those prospective buyers and if a prospective buyer declines to submit to paying the fee, he”—
	or she—
	“will be out of the picture and the seller will have lost an opportunity to sell his house.”
	That is what the property ombudsman has told us about the practice.

Robert Flello: No doubt the Minister will say that this is an issue of the market, that other estate agents will not do this, and that it will all come out in the wash. The point is, however, that someone who goes out and looks for a house and then finds the one that he wants cannot choose the agent who is dealing with the property. That is why it is so crucial for us to sort this out now, rather than waiting until every single estate agent does the same, as though the market will somehow adjust itself.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I admit that I have been deeply concerned about campaigning on this issue and for our proposals, because I think that it is a bit like telling turkeys how to avoid Christmas. The more we make it clear to estate agents that the Government are currently letting them get away with this behaviour, the more they will engage in it. Indeed, I am sad to report that since February, when we began expressing concern about double charging, an increasing number of estate agent chains throughout
	the country have been using “sale by tender” processes involving the introductory fee. I must emphasise that we are objecting not to sale by tender per se, but to the fact that people are being charged a fee to be introduced to a property. That is what is causing such concern.
	When I first observed that Douglas Allen in Walthamstow was engaging in the practice, I thought that perhaps we had just one rogue estate agent. I hoped that when Phil and Kirstie came to Walthamstow recently to film “Location, Location, Location”, they would take a dim view of it, but I am sorry to say that we are now hearing of cases at Your Move, Ellis and Co. and Reeds Rains. A number of estate agents are picking up the idea that applying such fees is acceptable behaviour, and the damage that that is doing to the interests of both sellers and buyers is growing.
	There is a question for us here. We can see that the practice is distorting the housing market. If we want a free and fair market, these conflicts of interests must be resolved, so that sellers can be confident that buyers are always acting in their interests, and buyers can be confident that when they participate in a bid such as this, it is taken seriously. Should we act, or should we wait until the damage to consumers’ interests becomes worse? We tabled amendment 1 in order to make charging two parties to the same transaction a fee a term in a contract that can be challenged on the basis that it is unfair. We believe—as does the property ombudsman—that such charges are indeed unfair, and should be open to challenge.
	This comes at a time when there is widespread concern about the estate agent industry, full stop. I accept that it may be another “British value” to complain about estate agents, just as people complain about traffic wardens and, indeed, politicians. We all recognise that we are not immune to that moment in the pub on a Friday night. However, we know that there are serious concerns because of the nature of the housing market. I have been contacted by people who have been told by estate agents that they cannot have access to the lists of housing for sale unless they commit themselves to taking out a mortgage through them, or using their financial advisers or lawyers. That is another clear conflict of interests for the seller.
	We need a tough regulatory regime to ensure that we have a fair housing market in England and Wales. We continue to be concerned about the fact that the Government have delegated the monitoring of all estate agents in England and Wales to Powys county council’s trading standards body. A Welsh rural council has been charged with the task of examining the behaviour of nearly half a million estate agents. It should be taking account of the blatant and rampant exploitation of the demand for housing that these charges represent, but when people affected by them have contacted Powys, they have been met with indifference about whether it should be dealing with the issue. The council took over only in April—this may be a new moment—but it is clear that we need to take stronger action before the situation gets out of control.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is highlighting the way in which the Government have contracted out different aspects of trading standards to various local authorities. Has she looked into the number of houses that have been for sale in Powys, and
	considered how experience in Powys can possibly inform an intelligent approach to the London housing market, which is totally different?

Stella Creasy: I think that there is genuine concern about whether Powys county council is equipped for the task. This is not necessarily just about its trading standards: after all, this is a council that has gone through three cabinets in as many months, and has had problems with the setting of its budget. Some have suggested that it needs to put its own house in order before putting our house sales in order. Certainly, double charging is a great example of the sort of problem that we would expect an effective regulator to be able to deal with. There is a clear conflict of interests. The fees being charged are clearly causing detriment to consumers.
	I welcome the fact that the Minister has met the property ombudsman since we raised this issue with her, but I note that as yet there is no evidence of any progress in resolving this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) pointed out, the number of agents using double charging in contracts is escalating. Many of my constituents who have been hit by these contracts have asked whether their lawyers can challenge them. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment and give consumers the opportunity to challenge these sorts of contracts, and to give them the legal protection that enables them to say, “This is fundamentally unfair and it infringes my rights”, and, indeed, to give sellers the opportunity to challenge them. Under these contracts, buyers and sellers are told that they cannot communicate with each other; otherwise, the offer that has been made is void. A seller may therefore be unaware of an offer that somebody wishes to make for their property, and that has to be cut back because the buyer must also include the fee. I was surprised to hear from the estate agents in Walthamstow that they always achieve 102% of the asking price of their properties, and 2% was, perhaps unsurprisingly, the fee they were charging people to buy their houses. “Who would have thunk it”—who would have thought that there would be such a close correlation?
	I hope the Minister will accept that there is a genuine issue here that needs to be dealt with, and the sooner, the better. We know the pressures on our housing market are not going to go away any time soon, but although we might argue about the numbers of houses that need to be built, we can surely all agree that this is a conflict of interests that needs to be addressed. If, again, the Minister will not accept this amendment and this course of action, I hope she will set out how she will take action on this issue herself, so house buyers across the country do not have to find the extra thousands of pounds just to pay the nice fat fee for the agent.
	The other amendments we have tabled in this group also address challenges we believe are creating problems in our economy, in particular through these conflicts of interest. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 relate to conflicts of interest around services, in particular debt management and log book loans. The Minister will know of the Opposition’s concern about the personal debt bubble that underpins much of our economy, and in particular the number of people who are over-indebted. We know from the Money Advice Service that 9 million people in our country are already over-indebted, and half of these families live on incomes of under £20,000. This
	fragile situation has arisen despite our having had more than five years of the lowest interest rates in 300 years. It is likely that interest rates will start to raise, and personal debt may well rise at the same time—after all, wages are still not keeping pace with prices—so it is all the more important that people can access credit, debt advice and debt management services in an affordable fashion.
	Amendment 2 deals with the problems caused by log book loans. Members who served on the Committee will be familiar with the Opposition’s determination to reform this outdated and outmoded form of credit. There are widespread problems: more than 1,000 consumers complained about these loans to the Office of Fair Trading, and they were complaining about losses of over £1.5 million. Many of them come from the fact that these loans are based on bill of sale agreements, a Victorian type of contract that does not include modern consumer protection. Again, the Government have repeatedly voted against our proposals to reform bill of sale agreements and therefore end this outdated and quirky practice that is causing so much detriment. The Minister stated that there may well be an argument for updating the legislation, but that this is not the Bill to do it in. Those of us who saw from the title of the Bill that it was about consumer rights and protecting consumer interests were, of course, rather concerned by that, but let me point her to the concerns of the Financial Conduct Authority and Citizens Advice, which also want to see bill of sale agreements reformed.
	Christopher Woolard, director of policy, risk and research at the FCA, states:
	“People who use logbook loans are often in difficult circumstances with few other borrowing options…Logbook lenders have borrowers over a barrel. People don’t realise their car can be seized if they fall behind in repayments, with lenders often forcing borrowers to pay large amounts to keep their vehicle when they can’t afford to.”
	Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, argues:
	“The logbook industry is still in the dark ages and has been getting away with lawless practices.”
	Its own analysis of log book loan cases found that 14% had experienced harsh debt collection practices, almost a third were not treated fairly or appropriately by the lender, and nearly 20% had not understood the terms of the loan clearly.
	It is inexcusable to leave this outmoded form of credit arrangement available for lenders to use, and for them to exploit people in this way, particularly as we know that increasing numbers of people are going to need consumer credit in the years ahead because of the debts they have. We cannot understand why the Minister will not make progress on this issue. I believe she does understand that log book loans need to be reformed and that the case we are making—that bill of sale agreements have no place in a modern consumer protection landscape—so why does she feel that that should not be part of this Bill? We urge her to look very closely at our amendment, which would simply bring bill of sale agreements under modern consumer protection laws and, again, give consumers the right to challenge any agreement that does not uphold those laws. Indeed, it would be a sad indictment of all the work she has done on the other parts of the Bill and all the consumer protection laws in them if she were to say there would be a get-out clause in other respects.
	Amendment 3 also speaks to our wish to deal with the consumer credit landscape, and in particular consumer credit contracts that are designed to push people into debt as a way of propagating a service. Payday lenders are a case in point. Pushing people into debt is part of how they continue to make money and is part of the way in which the contract is structured, but we see that also with other financial agreements, particularly around debt management fees. Some 7% of British adults report struggling to get to pay day because of the debt management repayment plan fees they have undertaken to pay. Of the 50% of the public who struggle to get to pay day, for a third of them it is debt repayment that is causing the problem. Getting the structure of the debt repayment and the debt management system right is therefore vital for those who are in difficulty.
	There are already 2.5 million people in debt management plans, and that is a conservative estimate. The fact that people are able to charge fees that are sometimes up to 50% of the amount a debtor pays only compounds the length of time for which the person is in debt. Just as with payday lenders lending to people at a rate of interest that more or less guarantees they will have to come back and take out another loan, we believe that it should be challengeable in court if somebody gives a debtor a debt management plan that would prolong their debt.
	Let me give an example. StepChange offers a free debt management plan. It talks about a client who owes £30,000. When they were in a debt management plan they paid almost £6,000 extra in fees, which would extend the length of time they were in debt by 18 months compared with a StepChange-organised debt plan.
	Amendment 3 would make any contract for a financial service open to challenge if it is likely to push an individual into debt. I am sure people would recognise that there is a conflict of interests in that. If something is supposed to help someone’s financial situation but actually does the reverse because there is a financial incentive for the company involved, how can that be a fair term for a contract?
	Amendment 4 deals with another conflict of interest and we believe it would be beneficial to consumers to have the ability to challenge that in court. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) who is an expert on this issue. The cost of taking legal action can be prohibitive, but if people might struggle financially to claim compensation following an accident or unfair dismissal from work, legal expenses insurance can help cover the cost of making a claim, and it therefore makes legal action accessible to more people. Legal expenses insurance is often sold as an add-on in insurance contracts. One of the challenges, however, is whether the company concerned can act in the interests of the consumer when that legal insurance is used: as an insurance company has to pay out to cover the cost of legal fees, it may be in their interests for those legal fees to be as minimal as possible, but that may not be in the interests of the client. That may determine the nature of the legal advice given and action taken.
	We believe it is important that consumers are able to access independent advice in dealing with issues around legal insurance and whether there is an inadvertent conflict of interests. We therefore believe consumers
	should have the right to get independent advice before being sold such policies, so they know the consequences for their legal cover if they take out a policy. We also believe it should be an unfair contract term to sell a consumer a contract for a service that limits their access to independent advice.

Andrew McDonald: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Ministry of Defence has approved a particular policy under the banner of PAX that prescribes a single point of reference for legal advice and does not give members of our armed forces freedom of choice in that respect? Is it not reprehensible that we are in that situation?

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend has just illustrated why I believe him to be the expert on this issue. I hope that he will contribute to the debate to explain why this concern about independent advice is so important. He is right about upholding the need for independent advice.
	I am conscious that there are other Members who wish to speak in this debate, so let me say a little about net neutrality, and our amendment to amendment 19. I recognise that this is a new and evolving debate. Our discussions have ranged from the Victorian bill of sale to the contemporary net neutrality, both of which reflect this stress over conflicts of interest. For those Members of this House who have not yet had the chance to watch the viral videos about net neutrality, let me explain the concern. Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers and Governments should treat all data on the internet equally. They should not discriminate or charge by user, content, site, platform, or application. In layman’s terms that means that, whether we are looking at iPlayer, Sky on the Go or Netflix, there would be equal access to services. There would be no speed differential in accessing them.
	In America, some broadband and internet providers have been exploring the idea of charging companies different rates for providing their services. That means that they could offer access to some websites at a faster rate than others, and therefore change the way in which consumers access them. The fear is that that would create a two-tier internet, because it will limit the number of sites that consumers can access with ease, and the number of companies that can access and operate services equally. In particular, if large companies were to use their financial muscle, or their internet provision, to restrict access to their competitors or to new entrants to the market, it could limit creativity and innovation in the provision of services. An internet without net neutrality moves huge market power to those who are the gatekeepers to our online services. It is little wonder that 100 companies, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, have expressed concern about this issue. Indeed, “father of the internet” Tim Berners-Lee, who was rather unfairly described as a web developer recently, has argued that there is a real concern. He says:
	“Unless we have an open, neutral internet we can rely on without worrying about what’s happening at the back door, we can’t have open government, good democracy, good healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture. It’s not naive to think we can have that, but it is naive to think we can just sit back and get it.”
	We welcome the amendment that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but we are concerned that the way in which it has been drafted may
	inadvertently imply that those sites that are providing pay-per-view services, such as Netflix, would be required also to provide access to some of their competitors, and I am sure that that was not what he intended. We have tabled a clarifying amendment to make it clear that we are talking about those services that provide access to the internet, rather than content.
	It would be useful to hear from the Minister about what discussions she has had with her colleagues on the issue of net neutrality and about what action she is taking to ensure that consumers’ interests in the operation of net architecture are being upheld so that we do not have the concerns and challenges experienced by America. In particular, does she feel existing protocols are strong enough to protect the interests of consumers and avoid competition issues between content providers, and has she done an assessment of the impact on consumers in the UK of a possible two-tier internet?
	We have here some very different but interlinked issues around conflicts of interest, freedom of markets and consumer interest, and an effective piece of consumer rights legislation should provide consumers with the tools with which they can mount a challenge to any of them. We hope the Minister will accept our amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is about applying clarity in what is meant to the list of unfair contract terms that would give consumers the right to challenge issues in court. I therefore hope that the House will support them accordingly.

Philip Davies: I seek to restrict myself to speaking on amendment 19, which I tabled. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for what she said and for her general support for the thrust of my amendment. In the spirit of that cross-party co-operation, I should also make it clear that I am perfectly happy to support her amendment to my amendment. It is not my intention to press my amendment to a Division, but if the hon. Lady decides to press hers, I will of course support her, because her amendment does exactly what I intended my own to do. I hope that it will not come to that, because I hope that the Minister in her remarks will make it clear that the Government accept there is an issue, understand it and say that they will do something to resolve it. If that is the case, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, but we should wait to hear what the Minister has to say before we make any decisions along those lines.
	Over the past 30 years, competition in the telecommunications industry has gone from a monopoly, through a duopoly to what is widely regarded now as one of the greatest success stories of privatisation, with the UK having one of the most vibrant and competitive markets in the world.
	Additionally, the internet has become an essential part of our national infrastructure, transforming the way we work, play, gather information, communicate and trade. The internet provides the underlying infrastructure for many thousands of businesses and has slashed the cost of global communication.
	In 2010, the Government, through the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), said that they were supportive of open internet, which I hope is still the case. The reality is that some major fixed-line internet
	service providers and mobile network operators have not participated with the major industry-level agreement towards meeting that objective.
	The success of the internet is based on global interoperability—the ability for anyone to interact with any legal internet site anywhere in the world. That has created new opportunities, businesses and jobs, while also reducing costs for consumers. I hope that both sides of the House will agree that an open internet is vital for the future economic, social and political health of our nation. New services are coming online at an incredible rate, and it is important that this vibrant sector is able to develop as society becomes more mobile and people’s habits change.
	It is vital that organisations controlling access to the internet do not abuse their position by discriminating against legal services, data, traffic and content for commercial or political purposes, and from a protectionist perspective. Although telecommunications providers should be allowed to use certain traffic management techniques to manage the integrity of their network, it should not be at the detriment of rival services purely for anti-competitive reasons.
	Over the past year, I have been made aware of increasing evidence that certain internet service providers are undertaking various marketing and operational practices that are distorting a competitive market, creating consumer harm, hurting a number of specific internet industries and stifling innovation. The activity includes: blocking internet services that compete with their own on purely commercial grounds; not communicating to customers clearly at the point of sale that they offer only restricted access to the internet; and refusing to participate in the Government-supported pan-industry code of practice, which seeks to uphold open internet principles and which has been signed by some of the largest players, including BT, O2, Sky and 3. I believe that that verges on mis-selling. The lack of transparency and clarity that has persisted in the market has allowed consumers to be deceived by the practice of selling internet access when in fact significant parts of the internet cannot be accessed under the terms and conditions of some price plans.
	It seems like the voluntary ways of ensuring greater transparency in providing internet and telephony services have failed. There have been clear examples where certain operators, particularly in the mobile sectors, have misled their consumers by claiming to offer internet access, or UK internet, when some legal internet services are not available within the package that has been provided. In other cases, the small print—when I say small print I mean it, as one would need binoculars to see some of the terms and conditions—outlines extra costs that the consumer would face if they dared to use the internet they have paid for to access services that compete with their provider’s own.
	The fact that any operator is able to offer a product advertised with “internet access” and only have to clarify this policy in the small print is unacceptable. Unknowing customers who use popular services such as Skype, WhatsApps or Viber could see their service suspended but continue to be held responsible for paying their bills. That lack of transparency and clarity on these issues is totally unfair to these unknowing customers, and it continues, as consumers are in many cases unable to leverage competitive pressure because it is difficult to
	understand whether or not certain traffic types are allowed, blocked or just charged additionally. Ofcom’s consumer guide on internet traffic management from 2013 outlined the fact that consumers were not aware about traffic management practices undertaken by internet service providers and whether such practices would affect specific internet services that they used. How can consumers make an effective and informed choice if they are not fully aware of the practices of their internet service provider or mobile provider, and the potential of those practices to inhibit certain services?

Julian Huppert: The record will show that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I do not agree on many issues, but on this one I agree with him completely and utterly. He and I are supporters of the Internet Telephony Service Providers Association, which has had many concerns about abuses in this area. Does he agree that we are talking not just about transparency, but about setting a fundamental rule that such bias simply cannot be allowed? Does he agree that we should support net neutrality throughout and not simply tell people when it is being broken?

Philip Davies: It is a red-letter day for me when the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow agree with me. I could not have envisaged such cross-party support, and if the Minister is able to withstand that I will be disappointed. We have a political consensus, of which I am usually very suspicious. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the principle of net neutrality is the most important point. It is not simply a question of transparency; transparency is the minimum that people can expect. With my amendment, I am trying to ensure that we have net neutrality and truly open access to the internet, and to put an end to protectionist and restrictive practices that are against consumers’ interests.
	I am referring to services including voice over IP, which is similar to Skype. Voice over IP allows consumers significantly to reduce their phone bills by using voice over the internet, instead of their mobile provider’s phone minutes and messaging services that use mobile data rather than text. It is especially important for consumers that that market works efficiently given Ofcom’s research finding that a quarter of the UK’s poorest households are mobile-only and are wholly beholden to mobile operators’ tariffs to enable them to access crucial services.
	It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a consumer signs a mobile phone contract that offers internet access, he or she should be entitled to use any legal internet service that they deem fit, not just the parts of the internet that suit their mobile phone company. I hope that hon. Members understand that customers who buy a mobile phone package rarely have the time or inclination to read through all the minutiae in the small print, even if they have the foresight to imagine all the services that they might want to use over the two-year life of their contract. Surely, customers have the right to expect that an internet service will do what it says on the tin. Consumers should, therefore, be able to rely on statutory consumer protection regulations to protect them from such abusive practices.
	Given the rapid evolution of the internet, I do not think that it would be wise for Parliament to attempt to define everything that the internet is and does for the future, but I am convinced that the current unfettered ability of telecommunications providers, whether they be internet service providers or mobile operators, to decide what customers can and cannot access is harmful to consumers and to the wider economy. As I have outlined, those practices not only create significant consumer harm but stifle competition—for example, in the market for non-geographic and international calls—which leads to exorbitant prices and discourages new entrants to the market.
	There is also concern surrounding future innovation and economic growth. If innovators have no certainty that networks will carry their services, particularly if they rival products offered by the networks, companies will be less likely to invest in new services because the return on investment will be unpredictable. How can a provider who wants to build a mobile app have any certainty that the mobile network operator will not block his rival service or make it extremely opaque at the point of sale whether consumers can actually those services? Such things should be of great concern to us, because they will stifle growth in a sector that is incredibly important to the future prosperity of the country.
	When I asked representatives from Ofcom about the matter during a Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport hearing last summer, there was an acceptance that some undesirable blocking was being undertaken by certain mobile operators around specific internet services, and that more needed to be done to ensure that telecommunications providers were transparent and up front with their customers. Ed Richards, the Ofcom chief executive, outlined the industry voluntary code on the transparency of information given to consumers about traffic management practices. I have grave concerns as to whether the information that providers are supplying to their customers is helping in any way, shape or form. Ofcom’s research in September 2013 demonstrated that consumers were not aware about traffic management practices when making their purchasing decisions.
	Together with the internet code around transparency, the industry has created a voluntary self-regulatory code on maintaining the open internet. I believe that the code is a good one, and it will be an effective tool for protecting consumers and businesses. The significant problem is that some major providers are yet to sign up, nearly two years after the launch of the initiative. Given that there is no obligation on UK telecommunication providers in that area, those providers that are transparent and allow access to services could easily change their minds tomorrow and not be subject to any action.
	Therefore, I think it is time that the House recognised that unless more action is taken, certain industry players will continue to use clever marketing tactics and rely on the lack of consumer understanding to mislead their customers, distort the market and damage new and innovative internet services that threaten their own products. That is why I have proposed amendment 19, which would protect consumers from the practices that I have described. The amendment would ensure that anyone selling internet access, or using any similar term, will not be able to rely on any unreasonable or unusual definition of that term to restrict their customers’ access to legal parts of the internet.
	I have made it clear, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for doing the same, that I do not seek in any way to limit the ability of internet service providers to block access to sites for the purposes of child protection. Nor would my amendment prevent internet service providers from offering age-related content blocks where customers request them. I certainly would not want to do anything to change that. That is why I would be happy to support the hon. Lady’s amendment if she seeks to divide the House.
	Amendment 19 would give customers confidence that when they sign a two-year contract that offers internet access, they will get full internet access and will not be left with a contract that they cannot get out of that does not do what they thought it would when they signed up to it. It is essential to preserve and protect consumer access to the legal internet. We cannot allow internet service providers to decide for themselves, based on their own commercial interests, what customers can and cannot access while still marketing their service as internet access.
	The protection offered by amendment 19 would benefit all consumers, but it would also spur innovation, growth and job creation in a sector that is vital for the future prosperity of the country. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to support my amendment or the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I hope that we will not have to press the matter to a Division, because I hope that the Minister will understand the strength of the case that we have made and reaffirm that the Government will deliver on open internet access. If she is not prepared to do that, I hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will press her amendment to a vote, which I would support.

Helen Goodman: I would like to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your recent damehood. I know that a knighthood is a real thing, but I am not sure whether a damehood is a thing. However, it is a very well deserved recognition of your excellent service to the House over many years, and I am sure that all hon. Members were delighted to hear the news.
	This is a marvellous occasion for another reason. It is wonderful to be in the Chamber in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). That is a fantastic coalition, and it shows what a beacon of free speech the House of Commons is, because that principle has motivated everybody to get involved in the debate. I believe that the principle of net neutrality is the principle of free speech in the modern world. My hon. Friend set out a clear and cogent case for amendment (a) to amendment 19, and the hon. Member for Shipley proposed amendment 19 comprehensively. I shadow the Minister with responsibility for communications and creative industries, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), and I hope that the Minister at the Dispatch Box, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, has had some conversations with him since, in many ways, this issue falls into his bailiwick.
	Let me elaborate a tiny bit on what my hon. Friend said. Net neutrality is absolutely central to the operation of the internet. The principle that there should be
	no discrimination between services when providing internet access is fundamental to an open net. At the moment in this country we have no legislation, but we have a voluntary industry code of practice for internet and mobile service providers. However, the problem is that as it is voluntary the companies do not have to abide by it. European Commissioner Neelie Kroes has been working on proposals for net neutrality across the European Union as part of the single telecoms package. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Shipley did not highlight that excellent proposal from the European Union, but we do not need to wait for the European Union to have this debate or to ask the Government what they are doing, because the issue is a central one.
	The possibility of amending the Bill was brought to my attention by ITSPA, the Internet Telephony Services Providers Association, which is concerned that some internet providers have an interest in refusing to carry voice-over IP services because they have a competing product. Having discussed the question with Ofcom, I am not clear whether that is happening. If it is, it should not be, and if it is not, there is a risk that it might happen, and we in this House need to address that.
	The point made by the hon. Gentleman about the lack of transparency and consumer awareness is extremely concerning. There is a problem when people buy a piece of kit or take out a contract with one ISP or mobile phone provider if, in doing so, they restrict their access to some material and if there is no description or warning of that. That is clearly a limitation of their access to information on a free net.
	Ofcom is working to improve the effectiveness of the code of practice on traffic management transparency. My view is that transparency is not enough and that we need rules of the game that go beyond it. I am not convinced that even if the information was on a strapline across the packaging when people bought a piece of kit or signed a mobile contract they would fully realise what it meant. This is too important to leave simply to transparency, which is why I have put my name to amendment 19 and why I support these changes.
	The Minister needs to tell the House what the Government are doing proactively to preserve net neutrality. It is not enough to take a reactive stance, as the Government are on many communications issues. The Communications Act 2003 is a very good Act, but it is getting out of date and this is one example of that. That is why we were particularly concerned to have this debate in the House today so that we could find out what Ministers are doing.
	It is essential that we preserve free speech on the internet and net neutrality is part of that. There is a small exception in amendment 19 to enable us to continue with child protection—again, we have cross-party agreement on the importance of child protection—but we are all agreed that we want net neutrality, with that single exception, to be the modern form of free speech.

Yvonne Fovargue: I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and those that I am sure you have received from Members across the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I want to concentrate on amendments 2 and 3. I think that there is cross-party agreement that logbook loans are an anachronism. If the Government do not remedy that anachronism, it will be a missed opportunity. To leave it to the Law Commission to go through the outdated legislation in time would take too long for the vulnerable consumers who are affected. I know that because I have been a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills and in 2010 we repealed something to do with the dissolution of the monasteries.
	We cannot wait that long for the bill of sale provision to come off the statute book. It was never intended to apply to loans on vehicles such as cars and it should be abolished now. If it is not abolished, consumers need to be able to challenge it in court. I am sure that they will be supported in that by the advice agencies that brought the attention of the House and the country to the anachronism that is the bill of sale legislation.
	The Financial Conduct Authority said only two weeks ago that such loans are high-risk. It is considering the issue already, but while it is doing so people are taking out the loans either because they are not aware of the pitfalls or because they are their last or only resort. They put their only asset, their vehicle, on the line, pay the companies, end up owing money and still have no vehicle. They are in a worse position than if they had not taken out the loan in the first place.
	I also want to mention those whom we might call the innocent consumers—those who buy a vehicle that is subject to a bill of sale. It does not show up on the HPI register, as hire purchase does, and the first they know about it is when somebody comes round to repossess the car because they are not its legal owners. They can never be its legal owners while there is a bill of sale on it and they are left with no vehicle and no money. It is about time that we considered the bill of sale legislation. A law that was passed in the 1870s should not apply to today’s consumer market and should be allowed to be challenged in the courts if not repealed immediately.
	I have long campaigned on debt management companies. It has always seemed particularly perverse to me that people in debt should pay to get out of it. There are usually two reasons given by the companies for why people turn to them. The first is the lack of knowledge about the availability of free advice. Frankly, I am not surprised. I regularly get texts telling me that there is new Government legislation, that my debts can be written off and that I am entitled to payment protection insurance compensation and various other things, and debt management companies are one of the worst offenders. The Information Commissioner needs more powers to stop that misleading advertising.
	There is also a lack of provision for advice. I thank the Minister for her reply to my question on that point, which said that the Money Advice Service sets its own budget. Yes, it does, but as the Government rejected new clause 6, which would have meant the increased levy automatically going towards increasing the amount of debt advice, I hope that MAS will listen to the strength of feeling on both sides of the House and increase its budget to ensure that the introduction of payday lenders into the levy will increase the total
	amount raised and that it will not simply keep it at the same level with the other people paying less.
	There needs to be more funding for free debt advice. As we know, some 2.5 million people are in fee-charging debt management plans. That is 2.5 million people who, if those plans were not available, would need free debt advice. There is obviously a need for that funding. If the interest rate were to rise by only 0.5%, which is quite likely, an extra half a million people would be pushed over the edge from just about coping. It is essential that the Money Advice Service looks at the trends and asks for an increased budget.
	There is also a risk that those companies may go out of business and while doing so will not pay their creditors. A company in Manchester in my area of the north-west went out of business two weeks ago. About 2,500 people who had a plan with it were left with no money. People had been paying into that company, assuming that it was going to creditors, but the company has gone bankrupt. It is time that we challenge these debt management companies. They push people further into debt and can charge 50% of what somebody owes. Therefore, if someone owes £18,000, that is another £9,000 on the debt for something that an organisation such as StepChange or a citizens advice bureau can do just as competently for free. Indeed, in many ways they will do it better because such organisations have links with other companies and, for example, will know all the remedies for insolvency. They will put forward the remedy that is best for the consumer, not best for the company. To allow debt management companies to continue without being challenged on pushing people further into debt is not allowable, and I fervently support the amendment to clause 3.

Jennifer Willott: May I add my congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker? You will get bored with it soon, but at the moment I am sure it is probably still quite a novel surprise.
	I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) about the practice of double charging by estate agents. That issue has been raised in the House a number of times and in Committee. Under existing legislation—in particular consumer protection regulations and the unfair contract terms law—as well as their own industry codes, estate agents must already make fees and charges clear for consumers. I believe that there are risks in rushing into further legislative measures and applying them prematurely, which is why a better way of addressing the issue is through estate agent redress schemes.
	As the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned, on 7 May I met the property ombudsman and ombudsman services: property, to draw their attention to my concerns on this issue, and those raised by hon. Members in Committee and the House. Both redress schemes have agreed to monitor any complaints they receive, and more is being done. The property ombudsman has committed to producing new guidance that will put in place strict controls on the practice of charging the buyer a fee, or charges being placed on both buyer and seller, and the potential for conflicts of interest. That guidance will ensure that agents recognise their obligations under the ombudsman’s code of practice for transparency, disclosure and avoidance of conflicts of interest. If the guidance is not complied with, agents will be in breach of that code.
	Estate agents must belong to an ombudsman service, and ombudsmen have strong powers to tackle bad behaviour by estate agents. For example, they can give a financial award to the complainant or enforce obligations on the estate agent. As a last resort, estate agents can be struck off a redress scheme. Because it is a requirement on estate agents to belong to a redress scheme, if they have been struck off, they are effectively out of business and cannot continue to operate. If they continue to operate under those circumstances, it is a criminal offence.

Andrew McDonald: Does the Minister accept that instead of codes of practice and all that paraphernalia going round the houses, it is fundamentally a breach of the fiduciary duty that an estate agent owes to one client if they are in discussions with another and charging a fee for the same transaction? The interests are not united; they are completely and utterly divergent. Would it not be better to say simply, “You cannot charge two contracting parties a fee for the same service”?

Jennifer Willott: As I said, I met both ombudsmen in May and discussed the best way forward. As a result, they are looking at the conflict of interest, which I think is key to this issue, and at how guidance can be tightened so that the responsibility estate agents have to the buyer and seller is made clear.

Mark Tami: Can the Minister tell the House the size of some of those awards and how often they are handed out?

Jennifer Willott: No I cannot, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him more information on that.
	The ombudsman has committed to calling an early meeting of all interested parties to discuss the need for stricter controls, and I assure hon. Members that new guidance is being worked up for the industry as a matter of priority. The hon. Member for Walthamstow raised concerns about estate agents discriminating against buyers who will not take services from them—for example, mortgages and so on. Discriminating against buyers for refusing services from an estate agent is already banned and covered by the regulations.
	A number of hon. Members mentioned logbook lenders. We have discussed that issue a number of times and it is clearly a matter that concerns people across the House. Responsibility for consumer credit regulation, including logbook lenders, transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority on 1 April.

Yvonne Fovargue: Will the Minister tell the House how many licences to logbook lenders have been revoked by the FCA? What has happened to the bills of sale for those who have borrowed from a company whose licence has been revoked, if indeed there are any?

Jennifer Willott: That responsibility has only just been transferred to the FCA, and it is working with credit companies that must register with it. I believe that those companies start registering on 1 October, which gives them time to ensure that they comply with the regulations. From that date, therefore, the FCA will start to process licence applications. At the moment it is a little premature
	to answer the hon. Lady’s question, but the issue will be raised later in the year and I am sure she will ask Ministers at that point.
	There are concerns about the way logbook loans operate and their impact on consumers. Consumers will be far better protected under the FCA regime than under the old system. Logbook loan providers are now required to meet the standards that the FCA expects of lenders, including making thorough affordability checks and providing adequate pre-contractual explanations to consumers. They are also subject to the FCA’s high-level principles, which include the overarching requirement to “treat customers fairly”.

Stella Creasy: I know the Minister has logbook loans companies in her constituency. Given what she is saying, why will she not support our amendment, which simply states that all borrowers should be treated equally and be able to have modern consumer contracts—the sorts of things she mentioned with the FCA? Why leave a loophole for bill of sale agreements?

Jennifer Willott: If the hon. Lady gives me a chance I will come to that point.
	As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) highlighted, logbook loans have been defined by the FCA as “higher risk activities”. As such, they will be in the first phase to require the full authorisation I mentioned, and they will face closer supervision and higher regulatory costs as a result. The Government have also ensured that the FCA has a wide enforcement toolkit to take action wherever its binding rules are breached. For example, there is no limit on the fines it can levy, and—crucially—it can force firms to provide redress to customers. It also has flexible rule-making powers, so if it finds further problems, it will not hesitate to take action. Indeed, the FCA has said that it is
	“putting logbook lenders on notice”
	because it is concerned about that issue. Furthermore, the FCA’s new rules give it
	“the power to tackle any firm found not putting customers’ interests first”.
	Treasury Ministers have asked the Law Commission to look at how best to reform the Bills of Sale Act 1878. As the hon. Members for Walthamstow and for Makerfield mentioned, the legislation underpinning logbook loans is extremely old, lengthy and complex, and the Government believe that the Law Commission is best placed to undertake a thorough assessment of how to bring it up to date. The hon. Member for Makerfield raised concerns about how long the process might take and suggested that it had been kicked into the long grass. I would like to reassure her that the Law Commission has responded favourably to the Treasury’s request for the review, and will confirm its work programme in the near future .
	With regard to debt management companies, the Government recognise the importance of protecting vulnerable consumers using debt management plans. Our focus is on comprehensively reforming regulation of this sector. Like other consumer credit firms, such as the logbook loans, responsibility for regulating debt management firms has transferred to the FCA, and consumers will now be far better protected. The FCA has said that it is
	“unacceptable that those people who are struggling to make ends meet are being talked into unsuitable plans.”
	It has raised concerns about that.
	FCA rules make it clear that fees charged for debt management plans should not undermine the customer’s ability to make significant repayments to the customer’s lenders throughout the duration of the debt management plan. FCA guidance sets out that debt management firms should not allocate more than half the money received from customers in debt management plans to meeting their fees and charges from month one of the debt management plan. Once the initial fee for the arrangement of the plan has been paid, the proportion taken in fees should reduce.
	Because the practice of front loading fees can make debt problems worse before they can get better, the FCA’s policy is designed to ensure that significant repayments must always go towards outstanding debts with creditors from the very start of a debt management plan. Debt management firms are now also required to signpost customers to free independent debt advice, and the FCA has also put in place binding prudential rules for debt management firms that hold over £1 million of client money to help to protect customers if things go wrong. As with logbook loans, the FCA proactively monitors the market, and it has broad powers to levy fines and to force firms to provide redress to consumers. The FCA will thoroughly assess every debt management firm’s fitness to trade as part of the authorisation process. Alongside the logbook loans, because of the risks to consumers, the FCA has said that debt management firms will be in the first phase of credit firms that have to be fully authorised.
	On amendment 4, authorised persons in the financial sector are required to treat customers fairly. The property ombudsman service includes in its mandatory code of practice a specific requirement that a residential estate agent
	“must avoid a conflict of interest”.
	On 1 April 2013, the Government banned the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases, through provisions in part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. That covers all the main businesses involved—solicitors, claim management companies and insurers. A firm cannot benefit through referring a consumer to a particular third party, which in effect removes the incentive on the trader to refer a consumer to a particular third party, just as the amendment would do. Breaches are subject to enforcement action by the relevant regulator and by the FCA.
	The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) raised concerns about restricting access for members of the armed forces. The Government are committed to supporting our armed forces and the Ministry of Defence has worked with representative organisations of the financial services industry which have made a commitment to avoid disadvantaging members of the armed forces in the provision of products and services. If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns, I am happy for him to write to me about those and I will pass them on to the relevant Minister, or he can contact the relevant Minister to obtain more precise details on a particular point.
	The protections in the 2012 Act are strengthened further by the provisions of part 2 of this Bill. A core term that requires a consumer to use a particular third
	party or that limits access to advice would be assessable for fairness if it was not made prominent. Therefore, there is greater protection for consumers under this legislation.
	Amendment 19 has brought out a rash of agreement across the House from some unlikely parties. The principle here is transparency. Consumers must be aware of any limitations on their service at the point of sale. They are then free to pick and choose a service that suits them. Internet service providers are already legally required—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) will let me finish, she may like some of the things I am about to say, even if she does not like what I am saying so far. Internet service providers are already legally required to be transparent with consumers about their traffic management practices, and industry has done a great deal of work in this area. All major ISPs, which include fixed line and mobile companies, have developed and signed up to a transparency code of practice for traffic management, requiring them to inform consumers of their traffic management practices at the point of sale. That includes any restrictions on services. The broadband stakeholder group, which co-ordinated this work, has worked with a number of comparison websites to ensure that consumers can readily see this information.
	Ofcom recently reviewed the transparency code and found that traffic management policies are transparent and that the quality of information that consumers can access has improved since the code was launched. The research identified a number of areas in which ISPs could make information clearer, and Ofcom is working with industry to implement those. The Advertising Standards Authority has also published guidance to ensure that services advertised as unlimited genuinely have no data restrictions. So a great deal of work has already been undertaken jointly by industry and regulators to ensure that consumers get what they pay for and are aware of any restrictions on their service at the point of sale.
	The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised concerns about mis-selling and unfair terms. Misleading practices are already prohibited under the consumer protection regulations, and if terms are unfair, they are not binding on the consumer. Under the Bill, all small print terms will be assessable for fairness.
	Hon. Members have also raised issues about net neutrality. The UK is fully committed to an open internet and it believes that a self-regulatory approach can and does deliver this for consumers, as long as ISPs are transparent about traffic management practices that they employ, and consumers are aware of those at the point of sale.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that traffic management should not develop into anti-competitive behaviour, as he has highlighted. We will be working with the European Parliament, the Commission and other member states to deliver a package that ensures an open, safe and secure internet. However, we do not support proposals that mean we cannot enforce our laws, including blocking child abuse images, and we are committed to protecting our children online. That includes ensuring that child abuse images can be and are blocked, as well as giving parents the choice to implement domestic filters for age appropriate content.
	We continue to believe that regulation as proposed by the European Commission is unhelpful as it is too prescriptive and inflexible. Indeed, regulation may be
	unable to keep up with the pace of change of technology and may even have unintended consequences, such as higher consumer bills. I will ensure that the responsible Minister is made aware of the strong feeling across the House in this debate and the fact that Members on both sides spoke in support of this. However, I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the Government understand that there can be issues in this area and that we are working with both UK regulators and within the EU to tackle this, and I hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will withdraw amendment 1.

Stella Creasy: I add my congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker, to those of other hon. Members. Indeed, there is nothing like a dame. [Interruption.] Come on, somebody had to say it.
	I do not know where to start with what the Minister has just set out. Loophole after loophole seems to be being built into this legislation, with the proviso that someone else will pick up the pieces. The Minister hopes that it will be various other regulators, but it is clearly the consumer who will be ripped off instead. I can see from the face of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that he too was disappointed, and I fear that it is time rather than intent that will mean we cannot make much progress today. I urge the Minister to watch the John Oliver video that is going round the interweb, if only to understand the real concern about net neutrality. I certainly hope that our colleagues in the other place will make some progress on this. The idea that at point of sale we can defend such a fundamental principle as free speech does not cut the mustard.
	On debt management companies and log book loans, the Minister refers to the Financial Conduct Authority, leaving it to pick up the pieces from legislation that is antiquated and outdated, which at some unspecified time the Law Commission may look into. It is not good enough. We know that millions of people are in debt to such legal loan sharks. We know that the debt management industry is profiting as debt in this country goes up, not down. The right thing to do would be to get the consumer credit landscape to work for that problem, rather than to ask somebody else to deal with it, whether that is the Financial Conduct Authority or the Law Commission.
	Again, this is the Consumer Rights Bill. A bill of sale is a consumer contract. There is no justification in the modern world for leaving them in place. The Minister is fond of saying that the Labour Government had 13 years to do something about it. That Government were on the verge of outlawing bill of sale agreements. I hope the Minister will change her mind.
	The amendment that we must press to a vote is amendment 1 for those Members who were not here earlier to hear about estate agents charging both the buyer and the seller a fee. The Minister accepts that there is a concern. We are talking about fees of thousands of pounds for our constituents to buy a property—a fee that distorts the price that a seller will get. Yet again, the Minister calls for a loophole to be written in and calls for the property ombudsman to monitor the situation, when it is clearly a conflict of interest for an estate agent to act for both the buyer and the seller at the same time.
	Our constituents will rightly ask us what we are doing when we see these clear breaches of contract law taking place. Simply saying, as the Minister does, “Well, we’re going to monitor the number of complaints” is a green light for estate agents to undertake such practices. That is compounded by the fact that all estate agents in most of our constituencies are monitored from a rural Welsh constituency by Powys county council. It cannot understand how these half a million people are behaving, or how we reached the stage when a fee of thousands of pounds could be applied. There is complacency about a clear rip-off that our constituents are facing. [Interruption.]
	The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) says, “Get on with it.” There are people in my constituency paying £6,000 or £7,000 as a fee. The Minister says we had 13 years. The present Government have had four years. We have given an example of how they could do something about it. The Government are failing to make progress, yet again, and all our constituents miss out. I fear for the Minister when one of his constituents comes to him with one of those contracts, under which they are paying £6,000 or £7,000 to an estate agent as a fee to buy a property under sale of tender, and he justifies doing nothing about it.
	This Bill is an opportunity to make progress. We on the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] The Minister comments that I was in diapers when he became an MP, but I am old enough to recognise when there is a rip-off to be dealt with—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Will the hon. Lady sit down, please. Minister, I hope you did not say that. You have just entered the Chamber and you have been shouting since you sat down. It is not in order to speak to any hon. Member at the Dispatch Box. Members need to calm down a bit, please.

Stella Creasy: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to wind up.
	I know that house buying arouses a lot of passion, but it arouses even more passion when people get ripped off by an estate agent. It is clear that the Government do not support an amendment that would make progress in tackling the problem, which occurs across the country. They are all noise and no action. The Opposition want to see action on estate agents who are ripping people off. I hope Members on the Government Benches who have seen it in their constituency and who fear the impact that it is having on the price of houses will join us in the Lobby in voting for amendment 1.
	The House divided:

Ayes 205, Noes 272.

Question accordingly negatived.
	More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 13 May).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Schedule 5
	 — 
	Investigatory power etc.

Amendments made: 21,page67,line45, after “13(1)” insert “or (1A)”.
	This amendment and amendment 22 reflect the establishment of the Competition and Markets Authority, in place of the Office of Fair Trading, which now has a power to enforce these particular regulations.
	Amendment 22,page67,line47, after “19(1)” insert “or (1A)”.
	The explanatory statement for amendment 21 also applies to this amendment.
	Amendment 16,page68,line11, at end insert—
	
		
			 “A local weights and measures authority in Great Britain or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland Section 35ZA of the Registered Designs Act 1949”. 
		
	
	This amendment inserts a reference to section 35ZA of the Registered Designs Act 1949 into the table in paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 so that it falls within the enforcer’s legislation within the meaning of paragraph 9(1)(b) of the same Schedule. It also lists the relevant domestic enforcers of this provision.
	Amendment23, page 68, line 41, at end insert—
	
		
			 “A local weights and measures authority in England or a district council in England Sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) of this Act”. 
		
	
	This amendment ensures that the investigatory powers in Schedule 5 to the Bill are available for investigating a breach of the duty to publicise fees.
	Amendment24,page73,line15, after “to” insert “—(a)”.
	This amendment and amendment 25 maintain the ability of enforcers to request information from the Crown when acting for the enforcement of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
	Amendment 25,page73,line16, after “(3),” insert “or
	(b) an enforcer acting for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277),”.
	The explanatory statement for amendment 24 also applies to this amendment.
	Amendment 26,page88,line14, at end insert—
	(za) under section 35ZC of the Registered Designs Act 1949,”.
	This amendment inserts a reference to section 35ZC of the Registered Designs Act 1949 into paragraph 45(2) of Schedule 5 to ensure the power of forfeiture under that Act can be exercised by area enforcers when operating across local authority boundaries.
	Amendment 27,page88,line15, leave out “or” and insert—
	(a) under section 97 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (including as applied by section 11 of the Olympic Symbol etc (Protection) Act 1995), or”—(Jenny Willott.)
	This amendment inserts a reference to section 97 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (including as applied to section 11 of the Olympic Symbol etc (Protection) Act 1995) into paragraph 45(2) of Schedule 5 to ensure the power of forfeiture under that Act can be exercised by area enforcers when operating across local authority boundaries.

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Investigatory powers: consequential amendments

Amendments made: 17,page89,line27, at end insert—
	“Registered Designs Act 1949 (c. 88)
	A1 (1) Section 35ZB of the Registered Designs Act 1949 (enforcement) is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit subsection (1).
	(3) Before subsection (2) insert—
	“(1A) For the investigatory powers available to a local weights and measures authority or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland for the purposes of the enforcement of section 35ZA, see Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2014.””.
	This amendment makes a consequential amendment to section 35ZB of the Registered Designs Act 1948 in Schedule 6 by replacing reference to the investigatory powers contained in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which are being repealed by the Consumer Rights Bill, with those contained in Schedule 5 to the Bill.
	Amendment 18,page98,line33, leave out
	“local weights and measures authority”
	and insert “person”—(Jenny Willott.)
	This amendment modifies the consequential amendment to the Fireworks Act 2003 in Schedule 6 by replacing the words “local weights and measures authority” with “person” so that it is consistent with the consequential amendment to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 also in this Schedule.

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 10.50 this morning a reporter from The Sun, Tom Newton Dunn, tweeted:
	“ISIS will be made a banned terrorist organisation in the UK by the Home Secretary today.”
	That was before the Order had been laid before Parliament and before the shadow Home Secretary and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee had been notified of the Government’s intention, which is the normal procedure. As these matters involve national security, and obviously the whole House takes them very seriously, I wonder whether you feel that that chain of events was in order.

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise a point of order. Strictly speaking, it is not a point of order for today’s debate. However, I reiterate that Mr Speaker has made it clear to the House a number of times that any business that is to be dealt with in this House should be notified to Members of Parliament first. I see that the Government Chief Whip is in his place and am sure that he will ensure that no discourtesy to the House was intended and that he will reaffirm, and ensure that Ministers stick to, Mr Speaker’s clear preference, which is that this House should always be told first.
	Third Reading

Jennifer Willott: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am sorry that so many hon. Members are leaving the Chamber at this exciting point in this evening’s proceedings. Let me first convey my thanks to everyone in the House, including those currently leaving, and everyone outside who gave their time and expertise and shared their experience to help strengthen and improve this important Bill. We are most grateful. In particular, I would like to thank the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for conducting such invaluable pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill. The Government accepted a great many of its recommendations. I firmly believe that our reforms are stronger and that the Bill is better as a consequence of that scrutiny.
	I would also like to thank those individuals who gave oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee and the individuals and organisations who provided written evidence and suggested recommendations. I extend particular thanks to members of the Public Bill Committee, on which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) led for the Opposition, for their detailed examination and thorough scrutiny of the Bill’s provisions and for their extensive discussions about items of clothing, curtains, cushions and any number of soft furnishings.
	We have spent almost two days on Report examining a wide range of issues that affect consumers. I sincerely thank Opposition Members and hon. Friends for providing the House with the opportunity to debate such a broad range of consumer issues. I am grateful for hon. Members’ incisive inquiries on these significant matters; they have helped to ensure that our important discussions, and the action that the Government are taking, will properly tackle harmful behaviour swiftly and head-on.
	The Government’s reforms in the Bill amount to the most fundamental change to UK consumer rights in more than a generation. We want confident consumers who are willing to try new products and services, and to shop around. Consumers who understand their rights can play a crucial role in driving growth, because they encourage businesses to innovate and to be more responsive and efficient. That is why we are removing complexity and ensuring that the law keeps up with technological developments. The reforms proposed in the Bill make the rights and responsibilities of consumers and businesses clear and easily understood, and they take account of the way that modern consumers shop. There are an estimated 350,000 retail businesses in the UK, and goods are a critical part of the UK economy. That is why business and consumer groups agree that it is vital that we remove the complexity that makes compliance burdensome for business and confusing for consumers.
	The market for digital content is growing more rapidly than ever, and has an estimated annual turnover of around £200 billion. The new category of digital content proposed in the Bill, with its own set of tailored quality rights, will make consumers more confident about trying something new. That not only benefits consumers but helps the most responsive businesses—especially new market entrants that are not well-known brands with established track records—to attract custom.
	The services sector is worth more than 75% of the UK’s gross domestic product. That underlines just how important it is that the Bill gives consumers clearer, more accessible statutory rights, and introduces statutory
	remedies for the first time. As the Confederation of British Industry told the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee
	“the time is right to make sure that consumer law keeps in step with how those areas of the economy have evolved”.
	The law on unfair terms in consumer contracts is particularly complicated. We asked the Law Commission to look at unfair terms law in detail. It recommended three additions to the grey list, which we accept. It considered and rejected other additions—conclusions with which we also agree.
	Creating the National Trading Standards Board was a key step towards better equipping enforcers to tackle complex criminal activity. We are building on that in the Bill by making it easier for trading standards bodies to work more effectively across boundaries. Those reforms together will help tackle the estimated £4.8 billion-worth of consumer detriment arising from rogue trading activities.
	Setting out consumer law enforcers’ investigatory powers in the Bill will make them more transparent, which benefits both regulator and business. Clearly, we want enforcers to pursue rogue traders, but it is important that we do not disproportionately burden businesses that are already compliant. On the requirement to give businesses 48 hours’ notice of a routine inspection, the British Retail Consortium has said in evidence sessions:
	“The safeguards in the statute are absolutely perfect”,
	and:
	“If you have notice…it does not waste our time, and it does not waste the regulator’s time.”––[Official Report, Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee, 11 February 2014; c. 32, Q68.]
	The Bill will also give public enforcers greater flexibility to seek new and innovative ways of dealing with businesses that have broken consumer law. More consumers will get their money back, and they will be better informed about those businesses that choose to flout the law. Consumers will be able to take the past performance of businesses that choose to ignore consumer rights into account when deciding whether to buy from them. The flexibility to get better outcomes for consumers is seen as a welcome addition to the enforcement toolkit by both Which? and Citizens Advice.
	The UK has a world-class competition framework that benefits both business and consumers. However, evidence from the Office of Fair Trading highlights that the private actions regime is the least effective aspect of the UK’s competition regime. Anti-competitive behaviour harms consumers by lowering output, increasing prices and reducing quality, but the costs of going to court make it very hard for consumers to obtain redress. As Which? highlighted in its evidence during pre-legislative scrutiny:
	“The whole Bill is aimed at empowering consumers. Part of an empowered consumer is that they are confident that when things go wrong they will be put right.”
	Finally and importantly, we are determined to tackle the minority of rogue letting agents who offer a poor service. We are introducing legislation to require all letting agents and property managers to belong to an approved redress scheme, giving tenants an effective way of pursuing complaints. We are making agents publish their fees; that will give consumers the information that they want and support good letting agents. Such transparency deters double-charging and enables tenants and landlords to shop around, which encourages more competitive fees.
	The Bill contains important new protections for consumers and measures to lower regulatory burdens for business, so that markets work better and consumers are well protected. Overall, the suite of consumer law reforms is set to benefit businesses and consumers by more than £4 billion over 10 years. The Bill is therefore good for consumers, good for business, and good for growth, and I commend it to the House.

Stella Creasy: It is fascinating finally to come to the end of consideration of the Bill in this Chamber.

Jim Shannon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand to be corrected, but I thought that those who wanted to speak on Third Reading did so before the shadow spokesperson. Am I wrong?

Dawn Primarolo: You are wrong, yes. The Minister opens Third Reading, and the Opposition Front Bencher responds; we then hear from other participants. If we have enough time, and it is relevant to do so, we then hear the wind-ups. Do not worry—I will not forget you.

Stella Creasy: I am on tenterhooks to hear what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has to say. Thanks to our consideration of the Bill, I am aware of my right to a return and a repeat performance if I do not think the skill and service is satisfactory; he should be aware of that.
	Whereas poppadoms are not to be shared, I have feedback—the breakfast of champions, as it was once called—to share on the Bill and whether it works. Does it pass the Ronseal test—does it do what it says on the tin? The Bill says that it is there to
	“Amend the law relating to the rights of consumers and protection of their interests”.
	Certainly, as I hope I have just displayed, during our consideration of the Bill we learned what our rights will be: we will have the right to have legislation written with reasonable care and skill, and provided at a reasonable time and price to us all. The rights of our consumers—our constituents—to remedy and redress when they feel that we are not providing that are somewhat limited. That is why they rely on us Opposition Members to hold the Government to account. However, our role is not simply to intervene, or identify injustice as it affects our constituents, but to act on it. That is what we have tried to do in proceedings on the Bill.
	At the heart of this is the question of rights. Does the Bill give consumers the rights that they need if they are to act for themselves? That has been our central concern. In that, we were influenced by the words of the Mayor of London—who knows what else he will be in future?—who once said:
	“The dreadful truth is that when people come to see their MP, they have run out of better ideas.”
	If the Bill had been well written, it would have given people rights that would have meant that they did not have to come to us, their MPs, with such regularity with all the stories of consumer detriment that we heard
	during proceedings on the Bill. A really robust Consumer Rights Bill would empower the British public, giving them the rights and the confidence that they need to be able to choose the goods and services that they desire. Under that test, the public could demand a refund on the Bill, for as we saw only today, loophole after loophole remains, and it is consumers who will have to pay the price.
	The Minister talks of a consumer toolkit, but that toolkit has a blunt Stanley knife and a broken hammer in it. Time and again, throughout consideration of the Bill, the Government have failed to grasp how giving the public access to the information, advocacy and redress that they need to shape services to meet desired outcomes would be a better idea, in terms of dealing with markets and services when the odds are stacked against them. Indeed, one of the things we have not done so far is set out what a market that is not working looks like or what the problems are.
	In setting out our concerns on Third Reading, let me be clear about where our amendments came from. We need to recognise that a market is not working when information is not flowing freely between actors, whether they be consumers or businesses, such that they are not able to make informed choices. A market is not working when companies use their advantage to crowd out new competitors, collude on prices or, indeed, create a monopoly. Such a market may also result in unintended consequences because of the behaviour of others. The result is always the same: consumers miss out when markets do not work.
	We have attempted to amend the Bill in this House and I am sure my colleagues in the other place will continue to do so in order to address some of those problems. Many markets in the UK do not meet the metrics of success whereby information flows freely and there is competition on creativity and innovation—not exploitation of captured consumers who have little option but to pay over the odds—and where the reasonable care and skill test can truly be applied.
	At every stage of this Bill, colleagues throughout the House have raised issues that reflect those concerns about markets, including ticket touting, rip-off estate agent fees, copycat websites, logbook loans, product recall and even net neutrality. Every example involved scams and sharp practices, yet this Bill will not make progress in protecting the interests of consumers. As we have consistently been told by the Minister, that is outside the scope of the Bill and a matter for the mysterious implementation group, whose inner workings are still a secret to many of us.
	At every single turn, the Minister has claimed that someone or something else can act. She has said that so often that we think it would be worth renaming the Bill the “computer says no” Bill. That may be an effective phrase for coalition government, but it is also a recipe to rip off consumers.
	Despite the Minister’s best efforts to tell us, “There’s nothing to see here,” it has become clear during the course of our work that this Bill reaches far beyond how easy it is for any of us to return a jumper with a hole in it. We know there is much more to consider with regard to how the Bill will impact on the public sector. The Minister has still not clarified which services are covered, preferring to tell us only that most NHS care, state-funded education and law enforcement services
	are not covered. Of course, given that tuition fees, personal care payments and child care vouchers are covered, it would seem that this Bill is less a case of, “computer says no,” and more one of, “Yeah, but no, but yeah.” It has certainly felt like we have been asking questions of the sphinx at times, because we have had to find the right question in order to get the right answer for our constituents. The risk is that the Bill will devour all those who fail to solve its riddle.
	In fear of yet again being cast into the pit of despair, may I again ask the Minister to clarify, with a yes or no answer, whether the following contracts are covered? Is the BBC licence fee covered? Given the recent comments of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, surely that is an apposite and important point to clarify. Before the Bill goes to the other place, it would be incredibly helpful if the Minister could clarify whether it also covers parking permits and prescriptions.
	Understanding this minefield and the impact it will have on consumers of public services now falls to our colleagues in the Lords. Given the evidence that we are a nation of silent sufferers—in particular, many elderly users of care services fear that they cannot complain—the fact the Minister is devolving getting this right to the Cabinet Office, as she declared on the first day on Report, simply will not stand. We put her on notice that we will not let public service users experience a two-tier system because she could not define what clause 2 does.
	The Minister may sigh again and point to the long gestation of this Bill, including the Labour Government’s original 2009 White Paper on a new deal for consumers. We generally agree that there is a need to update the fundamental principles enshrined in the Sale of Goods Act 1979. That was published shortly after I was born—which, as the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who is no longer in his place, would say, was, “A long time ago.”
	It is certainly time for an update, which is why we will not oppose this Bill’s Third Reading, but it is also time for clarity, which the Bill does not yet deliver. I hope the Minister will not think it churlish of me to say that we welcome the fact that some of our proposals have been considered and, indeed, adopted. When the issue of speedier refunds was first raised, there seemed little hope of progress, but having had our call for a time limit of 30 days batted away, we were delighted with the Government’s amendment making 14 days the cut-off for consumers to get their money back. There have also been announcements on copycat websites and letting agent fees as the Bill has progressed. Those things have been encouraging and we wait with bated breath to see on what else the Minister will come full circle.
	Like the Minister, I want to put on record my gratitude to the members of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the members of the Bill Committee for playing their part. Having received during the course of our deliberations a marriage proposal, hair-dressing advice, loft-conversion concerns and a lecture in socialist ideology, as well as the opportunity to hear passionate debates on issues such as electrical safety, public service reform and data protection, I believe we have given much for our colleagues in the other place to ruminate. I also want to put on record my personal thanks to the Clerks of the Public Bill Office, who have been kind and generous with their time in drafting amendments and
	new clauses. However mean the Minister may wish to be about those amendments and new clauses, we certainly think they have made a difference.
	As the Bill goes to the other place, let me say again what a missed opportunity it has been. Major consumer reforms come along very rarely—as the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, would point out, I am now of a certain age. I fear there is little hope of a return, a refund or a repeat performance for our constituents if we get this wrong. They will not want to wait another 35 years. I have every confidence that the noble Lords will continue our work on issues such as letting agent fees, debt management, access to data, advocacy, trading standards and redress, and that they will also finally pin down the magicians of the implementation group and the mysterious work of ombudsman services.
	Britain can do better. We will not oppose the Bill, but instead send it to the other place and ask it to continue our efforts to improve this Bill so that it can live up to the bold sales pitch of protecting consumer interests. If that does not happen, I for one will encourage the British public to exercise their right to a return at the ballot box in 2015 and finally cast out a Government who are clearly not fit for purpose.

Fiona Bruce: I am very pleased to see this important Bill complete its passage through this House. Economic development depends on those receiving goods and services knowing that they can depend on robust legal protection and clear redress. Knowledge of the reality of the protection that this Bill promotes and provides will enable people and businesses to get on with the important job of producing and accessing goods and services, in which context our economy can continue to grow.
	The principle of fairness underpins this Bill. As the Minister has said, it is vital that the law keeps up with technological developments. It is vital, therefore, that in developing new medical technologies, such as mitochondrial transfer, we do not rush into them, especially when significant consumer protection concerns are in play. That is only right and fair. Just yesterday, the fertility expert Professor Robert Winston stated:
	“I don’t believe there has been enough work done to make sure mitochondrial replacement is truly safe.”
	For that reason, I regret that there was no time to debate my new clause 31, even though it was selected.
	The situation also demonstrates the importance of not bringing to Parliament any proposed legislation permitting such procedures until all the necessary pre-clinical tests have been concluded, some of which have been described recently by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority as “critical”. Only then should parliamentarians be asked to assess the evidence and vote on such measures. Only then will we demonstrate to our constituents that we are not rushing to adopt new medical techniques without treating safety concerns with the utmost seriousness.
	I am very concerned we have not had the opportunity to debate new clause 31, because it needs parliamentary time. I very much hope that the concerns it addresses will be thoroughly debated in the other place at another time.

Jim Shannon: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is passionate about the subject she has just addressed. I hope the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), will not be disappointed with my contribution. I want to put on record some important issues.
	The Minister has outlined very well the issues that the Bill tries to address, but I and other Members still have concerns. I am particularly concerned about the issue of debt advice. There are many debt organisations in my constituency. Citizens Advice, Debt Advice NI and Christians Against Poverty are just three groups that give advice—they do not lend money—on the problems people face when they borrow money and build up debts they are unable to pay.
	The Consumer Rights Bill should be just that—legislation that protects consumers. Does the Bill do so entirely? Some of us feel that it might have done more, and we would be much more relaxed about it if it had done more.
	The regulation of loan companies, which Members have referred to, is a very complex matter. We are all aware of the story about a lady who borrowed a couple of thousand pounds from a loan company, which developed into a six-figure sum over a number of transactions. She found herself in a very difficult position, and she then had her house repossessed. That may be an extreme example, but it illustrates our concerns.
	I very much welcome the Government’s commitment on the territorial extent and application of the Bill. I want to comment on part 3, which does not extend the Sunday Trading Act 1994 to Scotland and Northern Ireland, for example. The decision in relation to that will clearly lie with the Northern Ireland Assembly. I must say that that is good news for the people of Northern Ireland who attend church, but have to work on Sundays or might potentially have to do so. Any decision will lie with the Assembly, which is good news.
	I wholeheartedly concur with the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Congleton about the controversial technological changes referred in new clause 31 in relation to three-parent children. I am concerned that there was no opportunity to debate that on the Floor of the House, because I certainly wanted to speak about it, as did other hon. Members. I suggest that it seems very dangerous to go ahead with such a change, as has been indicated, without any consensus of support or a majority in its favour. I must put on the record that I am very concerned about the numbers of ladies who have such worries. Some 558 people responded by saying that they did not want the change. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The Bill has addressed many of the issues about which we have concerns, such as the right to the repair or replacement of goods. I commend the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on the good work that he has done on the Bill. He fought very valiantly and got the changes that he had hoped for in relation to electrical goods. I am tremendously pleased to see in the Bill what he and many other hon. Members wanted it to include.
	If the Minister cannot respond on this point tonight, perhaps she will come back to me at some time, but I do not yet see powers for people who take out holiday
	insurance and need consumer protection—for example, those who, having booked a flight, find that they have to cancel it, whether for health or whatever reason—but cannot get a reimbursement. I had hoped that the Bill might give those people more protection, but I am not sure that it yet does so.
	I welcome many of the things in the Bill, as well as some of the things in it about which we are not entirely happy. None the less, I congratulate all hon. Members on their contributions to the Bill, and on their ability to bring to the Floor of the House provisions that can make a change.

Jennifer Willott: With the leave of the House, I will respond to some of the points made. The Bill has benefited from thorough and considered debate in this House. We have now had lengthy discussions on many subjects covered by the Bill, and possibly even more on those not covered by it.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised the issue of mitochondrial donation or transfer. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority set up an expert panel, which has conducted three reviews on the safety and efficacy of the proposed treatment. I want to reassure her that any proposed regulations on this matter would be subject to debates in both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative procedure, so were measures taken forward, there would be a full debate.

Fiona Bruce: Will the Minister reassure me that regulations permitting such a treatment will not be laid before the House until clinical procedures that have been described by the HFEA as critical are concluded and reviewed?

Jennifer Willott: I suggest that the hon. Lady take up that issue with Health Ministers, as this policy area sits firmly under their portfolio. She is asking a very technical question about the background to the regulations, and it might be more proper for one of them to respond.
	I was a little disappointed by the response of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). She is very dismissive of the Bill, which she has described as full of loopholes. Consumer and business organisations all agree that the Government are doing the right thing and that the Bill will make a real difference, as we repeatedly heard in evidence to the Public Bill Committee and to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee during its pre-legislative scrutiny.
	It cannot be denied that the Bill is the most dramatic overhaul of consumer protection for a generation. The UK already has very high levels of consumer confidence and knowledge—higher than almost any other country in the European Union—but I believe that we can raise them higher. It drives huge change both in business and across society to have consumers who are well informed and confident of their rights, and who know what they can do when something goes wrong. Consumer protection drives innovation across businesses, growth in the economy and confidence among our consumers. I believe that this Bill is the way to achieve that, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Education

Edward Timpson: I beg to move,
	That the draft Special Educational Needs (Personal Budgets) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 9 April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
	The regulations are the first to be laid under section 49 and—it gives me great pleasure to say—under part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014. As I think we can all agree across the House, the 2014 Act has the potential to make a massive improvement to the lives of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.
	The regulations will introduce the option of a personal budget for education, health and care plan holders from September 2014. The SEN pathfinders have shown that personal budgets can make a real difference to children and young people; indeed, according to some parents on the pathfinder programme, they can be life-changing. However, the introduction of personal budgets is complex, and hon. Members may want some reassurances about their introduction in September, especially in relation to the testing of direct payments for SEN provision.
	If personal budgets are to work, parents must be given clear, up-front information about their availability, as well as advice and support on requesting, taking up and managing a personal budget, including on direct payments. Personal budgets must be embedded in the education, health and care planning process, rather than seen simply as an addition to the system. Their introduction from September, as part of the wider reforms, means that councils are developing personal budgets as a coherent element of the system, rather than just a mere bolt-on. I must stress that, building on the experience of the pathfinders, our approach to implementation will be one of evolution, rather than the proverbial revolution.
	The draft code of practice, which was laid before Parliament on 11 June and is subject to debate in its own right, is abundantly clear on that important underlying principle of successful implementation. Subject to the will of Parliament, the code of practice will, along with regulations covering the local offer and EHC plans, set out a flexible framework for implementation, while providing a clear expectation of what councils must have in place in September 2014 and of how it should evolve over time as joint commissioning arrangements and local offers mature.
	To turn to the substance of the regulations, they contain many of the provisions that we have previously debated as part of the pilot scheme for direct payments for SEN provision. They give parents and young people the right to ask for a personal budget when an EHC plan is being prepared, or during a statutory review of an existing plan. Parents must be given up-front information about personal budgets, including the information that will be required in, and consulted on as part of the local offer.
	We have maintained the considerations in relation to value for money and the impact on other service users—an issue that has been of concern in debates in this House and the other place. We have repeated the requirement for the permission of a school or college and added early-years settings where a direct payment is being
	used on their premises. I understand that there are concerns that that could be a get-out clause and a barrier to inclusion, especially in further education. However, we have seen no such evidence from the pathfinders. It is only right that institutions have the final say on who can work on their premises. I can, however, reassure hon. Members that we will keep a careful eye on that aspect of our reforms.
	Finally, I want to return to my earlier theme of the complexity of implementation. I draw the House’s attention to the comprehensive package of support that is in place to help councils meet this important challenge. An ever-increasing array of materials, including practical advice, case studies, checklists and frameworks for implementation, is available on the SEN pathfinder website. All those materials have been developed with expert support from local authorities, their partners, and voluntary and community sector groups that work in the area, including those that represent parents.

Mark Tami: Last year, the Minister kindly met me and representatives of CLIC Sargent to consider the position of children who suffer from cancer. Will he assure Members that there will be the necessary flexibility—this is the key issue—to deal with children with varying abilities and concerns?

Edward Timpson: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman absolutely on that point. The meeting that we had last year informed not only the legislation, but the underlying code of practice, which is now in draft form. The whole point of personal budgets is to embed flexibility and personalisation in the support that is available to parents, and to put them much more in control of the choices to ensure that they and their children get the relevant support when they need it. I hope that he will take time to look at the code of practice. I know that CLIC Sargent, which works closely with the Department, has done so. I am grateful for the work that he and that charity have done.
	Our SEN advisers are visiting councils the length and breadth of the country to establish what more local areas may need and, when necessary, are making referrals to our pathfinder champion support team and the newly appointed national champions for personal budgets.
	That package will be complemented by a thematic evaluation of personal budgets and integrated resourcing, which will be undertaken by SQW, the evaluator of the pathfinder programme, and will be published this summer. The research will re-examine the progress that has been made by pathfinder and non-pathfinder areas to identify good practice and lessons learned to inform the development of less advanced areas.
	To conclude, with the framework for implementation set out in the regulations, the code of practice and the support that we are providing with our partners, I am confident that we have an approach that will, in the coming years, make a huge difference to the lives of children and young people. I hope that hon. Members will give it their support.

Stephen McCabe: The Opposition support the principle of personal budgets and direct payments, so we will not oppose the regulations. However, I have a number of questions about safeguards and how the proposals will work in practice.
	The draft code of practice, to which the Minister referred, states in paragraph 3.39 that, as an “integral part” of the process of planning personal budgets,
	“partners should ensure children, young people and families are involved in the decision-making processes at both an individual and a strategic level”.
	How will the Minister monitor that and ensure that those fine words are translated into deeds? In the same paragraph, the code indicates that
	“the new joint commissioning strategies will support greater choice and control year-on-year, as the market is developed and funding streams are freed from existing contractual arrangements”.
	What steps will he take to ensure that he does not preside over a postcode lottery, with innovation and greater choice in some parts of the country, and reactionary, conservative obstacles in others?
	The Minister may be aware of the suspicion directed at his Government that what he describes, understandably, as “choice” could be used by some as a device to save money. As he will know, a number of organisations in the field of special needs education are reporting cuts to the provision for young people, particularly in areas such as speech and language therapy, and are consequently expressing doubts about how the Minister’s brave new world will fare in an environment where severe cuts in local authority services and welfare changes mean that families with disabled children and young people are already facing extremely difficult times.
	Will the Minister cite some good examples from the pilots of the kind of joint commissioning models he wants to see, which could be regarded as exemplars that others might follow? It is worth noting that last year, in a survey by the National Deaf Children’s Society, only 12% of parents were aware of the detail of the Government’s plans and only 17% of parents in the pathfinder areas were aware of them. I understand that only six of the 31 pathfinders have piloted personal budgets and that, across the country, only about 500 personal budgets are in existence. Is the Minister confident, therefore, that he has sufficient evidence to support the regulations?
	One issue that was raised during the pathfinders was the need to comply with the requirements of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs when families end up acting as employers because they are contracting their child’s support. Is the Minister happy that the guidance on that is sufficiently clear? He will know that those who have experience of personal budgets and direct payments have complained that large parts of the budget can be consumed on administration and paying for insurance and payroll services.
	Whose responsibility will it be to ensure that the work force and cultural changes that are necessary for a person-centred approach, for which the Minister has called, actually happen? If that falls to the existing service-level development managers, is there not a risk that they will have an incentive to protect their own roles by tying up organisations such as parent participation groups in bureaucratic service-level agreements, thus weakening their capacity to assist parents, children and young people? What practical steps will he take to guard against that?
	There seem to be two potential risks in this approach. There will be authorities that see it as a classic opportunity to minimise the direct provision of services, and which therefore overstate the benefits of personal budgets.
	There will be other authorities that want to use regulation 6(1)(c) to argue that, however valid the individual request, to accede to it would mean disaggregating funding that supports the provision of services for a number of children and young people. There are obviously legitimate concerns that it will be harder to engage in the planning and co-ordination of services in an environment where much of the funding is in the hands of individual parents and families.
	The experience in Essex was that providers were concerned about the impact that spot purchasing would have on their security because of the unpredictability that it brought to the amount of money they would receive over a set period. That is likely to have planning implications. Similarly, Essex county council claimed that the back-office implications included increased invoicing overheads as a result of moving from a large block to individual family contracting. Does the Minister recognise those dilemmas? How does he plan to be kept informed and to intervene to address those problems, if it is necessary? Will the first-tier tribunal be given any guidance on how it should consider such arguments? Indeed, should not regulation 7 specify the exact grounds on which a local authority may refuse? In the circumstances in which a person moves to a new authority, which opts to conduct a new needs assessment, what is to stop it drastically redrawing the terms of the personal budget? That is a common problem with the direct payment provisions for elderly people that already exist. What safeguards will the Minister put in place to prevent this further possibility in postcode lottery funding?
	Who will be charged with identifying and encouraging agencies and organisations in each area to be in a position to be nominated to receive direct payments? Will it be necessary for such organisations to be added to an approved list? How will that work and how will a body—especially a new one offering a new type of service—gain access? Conversely, what safeguards are in place to ensure that money is not spent on programmes of dubious or unproven effectiveness?
	The Minister helpfully told us that he was looking at the concerns about further education and direct payments, but how will he ensure that colleges do not simply see the money as an opportunity to offer more of the same, rather than personalisation? It is interesting that the disabled students allowance, which I believe the Government plan to scrap, is a personalised, portable payment for the individual rather than a direct payment to the university.
	I support the principle of personal budgets, as I have said, but the Opposition would not be doing our job if we did not speak up for the many parents, children and young people on whom the Government plan to unleash this system.

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for his comments and questions on the regulations, as well as his support for the principle of personal budgets and direct payments. I recall that when we last debated this issue in a Committee Room upstairs he had a host of relevant and pertinent questions, so I would have been disappointed if he had not had a further raft of questions to pose on this important issue in his usual manner. I shall try to answer as many of his questions as I can, and if I fail to cover any of them in detail I will write to him with a further and better answer, as I did after the last debate.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the evaluation of the implementation of these reforms and specifically about how children will be involved in the decision-making about personal budgets and more generally. Throughout the whole process, we have been at pains to involve children in the formulation of the new legislation, both through the EPiC group—Equality, Participation, Influence, Change—which works within the Department, and more widely through the Council for Disabled Children, which is a strategic partner. That relationship will continue. We are also ensuring that Ofsted is involved in looking carefully at how the reforms are bedding in. It will provide us with an evaluation that will form a good evidence base to determine whether the reforms are having the impact that we all want to see.
	In relation to the financial implications and the burdens on local authorities imposed by the reforms—of personal budgets in particular—we have done an assessment, as we always do. That is why a £70 million reform grant has been made in this financial year, and I announced last week a subsequent £43 million for implementation in the first year. It is also worth noting that there is not necessarily a direct correlation between personal budgets and additional costs. In fact, the evaluation of personal health budgets in the pilot that was undertaken found them to be more cost-effective in delivering services. I am confident that the reforms will not only help to deliver better services, but will alleviate some of the financial pressures on local authorities.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about joint commissioning and whether I could point to any exemplary work that showed that it was starting to make a difference to families. I encourage him to look at what is happening in Wigan, which has made excellent progress. It has demonstrated substantial change to its arrangements, and joint commissioning is at the heart of the work it is doing. It has subsequently seen an improvement in the services available to parents and children.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about how parents will be made aware of the availability of personal budgets, and that is an important point. It is why I wrote to parents through the various networks available to give them as much information as possible about what will happen in September. We are also working closely with schools, which are often the first port of call and the daily contact that parents have with the special educational needs system, so that they are informing parents now about what they can expect to happen in September and the role that personal budgets can play.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how we can ensure that we have a person-centred approach and what practical support we are providing to make sure that that is the case. Above all, I would direct him to the £30 million that we are providing to recruit and train some 1,800 independent supporters. They will not be from the local authority or health providers, and are the one aspect that parents have consistently told us are the most helpful addition to the support they receive as they enter the SEN system, both at the point of assessment and in the further work required to ensure that children achieve the desired outcomes.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked how organisations that are not currently involved in the delivery of services can make themselves known to potential users of personal budgets. That is, of course, the whole basis of the local offer that will be brought into being through consultation with parents and children, and should be a showcase of
	what is available in special educational needs services in a local area. I would expect that to include all those organisations that have the capacity to help to deliver some of the services that personal budgets and direct payments are designed to obtain.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the experience in Essex. I recall that when we last debated this issue he mentioned the experience in Solihull. I hope the fact that he has now moved on to Essex suggests that I have satisfied him that Solihull is ready for these changes. In fact, we have done a readiness survey of all 152 local authorities to satisfy ourselves that they are ready to go come September, not only on personal budgets but more widely across the reforms that we are bringing in. Some 90% of local authorities have said that they are confident that they are ready, but I am seeing some personally to satisfy myself that they have managed to deal with some of the issues that remain so that they are up to speed come 1 September.
	I said at the start that this is a complex issue, and I think that point was behind some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. It will create dilemmas for some of the funding streams and the disaggregation of finances. We are aware of those possibilities and we will keep a close eye on how they develop, not only through Ofsted but with the CDC and the evaluation that we have done, up to now, with SQW. I am confident that we are in a good position to ensure that personal budgets play a key role in delivering much better services for children and young people with special educational needs. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support in principle for the steps that we are taking, and I will keep a keen eye on how these important changes are delivered on 1 September for many young people. I am sure that they will benefit from the Government’s work.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	delegated legislation (Financial Assistance to Industry)

Ordered,
	That the Motion in the name of Secretary Vince Cable relating to Financial Assistance to Industry shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committee) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Mr Lansley.)

National security strategy (joint committee)

Ordered,
	That Mr James Arbuthnot be discharged from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and Rory Stewart be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Removal of Trees from Thirsk Market Place

Anne McIntosh: Would it be in order to congratulate you on the preferment that was shown to you in the Queen’s honours, Madam Deputy Speaker? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
	It is a pleasure and a privilege to present a petition on the removal of trees from Thirsk Market Place on behalf of residents of Thirsk and Malton. The petition is in the name of Mike I’Anson, the chair of Thirsk Community Woodlands Group, Lesley Rolfe, a resident, and 1,011 other petitioners, which underlines its importance. I add that trees are the logo of the Conservative party and people do love their trees in local areas.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Thirsk and Malton,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that Hambleton District Council has not explained in detail how it came to its decision to remove five healthy birch trees from Thirsk Market Place; further that the trees were located in a conservation area; and further that the Petitioners believe that no public consultation was undertaken in relation to the removal of these trees.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Hambleton District Council to replace the five trees which were removed and further requests that the House urges the Government to call Hambleton District Council to account for its actions.
	And the Petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	[P001358]

WORK CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

Sheila Gilmore: I am very grateful to have secured this debate. I have been pursuing work capability assessments for those on employment and support allowance since I was elected to this House. Indeed, I think I mentioned in my maiden speech that I would take up this issue. This is my sixth debate on specific aspects of the WCA.
	I want to develop an issue I first raised on 6 September 2013: the support that people receive while they challenge a decision on their entitlement to benefit. This will generally involve somebody who has been found fit for work, but who believes that the decision is wrong and that they are entitled to ESA. It could, in some circumstances, also apply to someone placed in the work-related activity group, as opposed to the support group.
	In the past, a claimant could immediately lodge a formal written appeal with a judge from Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. A Department for Work and Pensions official, known as the decision maker, would look at the original decision again, and either change it in the claimant’s favour or uphold it and pass the appeal on to a judge. That initial stage was, and still is, referred to as a reconsideration. What has changed is that since October 2013 claimants have to apply for reconsideration formally and separately before they can lodge an appeal. This two-stage process was introduced following the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and its subsequent regulations.
	I emphasise, as I have done before, that I do not object to the introduction of even a mandatory reconsideration process. It can be quicker, less stressful for claimants, a lot cheaper for taxpayers, and, as I think the Minister himself said last week, it may be contributing to a reduction in the number of formal appeals. There are, however, serious practical consequences to mandatory reconsideration: the gap in payment to claimants prior to the formal appeal process, long delays in receiving a decision on reconsideration, and the lack of statistics on outcomes.
	Claimants, although they may not be aware of it, have never formally been entitled to employment and support allowance during the reconsideration process. However, prior to October last year the benefit was usually paid at the assessment rate because reconsiderations —we could, perhaps, call them informal reconsiderations —took place under the auspices of having lodged an appeal, and when claimants lodge an appeal, they are entitled to receive assessment-rate employment and support allowance. Now that claimants have to apply for reconsideration and then appeal at a subsequent date, there is a gap in payment. Official advice suggests that during this period claimants can apply for jobseeker’s allowance, rather than employment and support allowance, while their reconsideration request is being considered. They can then go back to claiming ESA at the assessment rate if their original decision is upheld and they submit an appeal.
	As I noted last year, however, JSA comes with a high level of conditionality. Claimants have to be available for work, actively seeking work, attending work-focused
	interviews, searching for jobs and making a minimum number of applications every week. In itself, that can prove tiring and stressful, and can exacerbate existing physical or mental conditions. Even more important is the fact that those who apply and fail to meet these conditions can be sanctioned or refused benefit altogether. In my previous debate, I predicted that this would lead to people having no support from the state, with people being too fit for ESA and too sick or disabled for JSA. I have encountered many such examples in my constituency. Citizens Advice Scotland, which has given me a great deal of support for this debate, has today published a report on this issue. It describes some of the situations in which people find themselves. These are real cases that have come to their bureaux. I suggest that the Minister look at the report.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am glad that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. She mentions the Citizens Advice Scotland report, which I too have seen. Does she agree that the Minister should look at its recommendations? Like her, I deal with many of these problems in my constituency casework. The Government cannot just leave the situation as it is.

Sheila Gilmore: Indeed. The report’s recommendations are very sound. One fundamental recommendation is to reinstate the payment of ESA for practical reasons, and I will come on to that.
	Of those cases, most who applied for JSA while their reconsiderations were ongoing were either refused outright or failed to attend necessary appointments, owing to their mental health condition, perhaps, or, in some cases, their learning disability. Others did not apply because they could not face another benefit application, or simply because they did not know that they could. In one case where a claimant applied and was paid JSA, he emphasised that this was only as a result of support he received from his Jobcentre Plus adviser. For those who did not receive JSA, few had savings or other income to fall back on and had to rely on already overstretched food banks. Others took out high interest loans, amassing debts they will struggle to repay even if they subsequently receive backdated payments at a later date. One constituent sold off his few remaining possessions to survive.
	When I first raised these concerns last September, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), assured me, as he did in subsequent correspondence, that claimants with an outstanding reconsideration request could ask for what was described as “flexible conditionality” when they met their Jobcentre Plus adviser. Last week, however, the Benefits Director at the DWP acknowledged to the Work and Pensions Committee that
	“not all advisors had been aware of this”
	and that new guidance to jobcentres had been circulated at the end of April this year—several months after the introduction of mandatory reconsideration. That is welcome, but it is hard to have confidence in the Department, given that previous assurances were clearly unfounded.
	In addition, we were told at the same meeting that people should never be refused JSA outright without the opportunity to have a meaningful conversation about conditionality with a jobcentre adviser. However, the DWP’s own guidance specifically states that
	“a claimant will not be able to remain on JSA if their period of sickness exceeds 14 days”.
	Citizens Advice Scotland has suggested that this is a particular problem for those claiming JSA during an ESA reconsideration. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.
	More broadly, however, I question the whole rationale for preventing claimants receiving ESA at the assessment rate during this period. Last week the Minister tried to hide behind legal semantics, arguing that claimants are deemed to be fit for work during this period and must apply for benefits accordingly. However, that ignores the fact that claimants are also deemed fit for work during a formal appeal, yet because of the way in which regulations are framed, they are entitled to ESA at the assessment rate during that process. If the problem is how the regulations were set out following the Welfare Reform Act 2012, they can be changed. There is no real reason why people should be treated differently during the reconsideration period and the appeal period.
	There is also an administration cost involved in a claimant receiving the assessment rate of ESA, ceasing to receive it, claiming JSA and then potentially claiming the assessment rate of ESA again. These are significant costs when multiplied by the number of people involved. In addition, if everybody claimed JSA successfully, they would receive benefit at exactly the same rate as they would have been getting on ESA, so if there are any savings to be anticipated, is it because Ministers thought that people would, in fact, struggle to claim JSA during the reconsideration process, given that administration costs are likely to outweigh anything else? I am sure that cannot be the case.
	The other issue that has come up as mandatory reconsideration was rolled out since the end of last year is the length of time that people are waiting for decisions. We were initially told that reconsideration should take around two weeks, but in many of the cases I have seen, as well as in those seen by Citizens Advice and many of my colleagues, the time taken has varied between seven and 10 weeks. Those delays have exacerbated people’s health conditions and the financial and other issues they face as a result of receiving no benefit at all. The Minister acknowledged in evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee last Wednesday that there was a backlog. My staff have been told by our local office that there is indeed a backlog—that is how it was referred to. I would like the Minister to confirm today how long claimants are being told they will have to wait, and when he will publish statistics on average times and the total number of claimants who are waiting for a decision.

Mark Lazarowicz: My constituents are served by the same office as my hon. Friend’s and we have had the same experience. Would it not also be useful for the Minister to tell us whether the backlog is increasing or declining? If measures are not taken to deal with the problem, the danger is that it will get worse, not better.

Sheila Gilmore: I agree. One of the problems with many of the backlogs we are experiencing is that they are increasing.
	Last week the Minister also defended the decision not to set a statutory time limit on how long reconsideration decisions take. This issue was raised with Ministers when the legislation was going through the House and
	in subsequent sittings of the Work and Pensions Committee, for example. In April 2012, the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council warned that the absence of a time limit could have the effect of
	“delaying indefinitely the exercise of the right of appeal to an independent tribunal”.
	Just last month, Judge Robert Martin expressed concern that judges could no longer intervene if they felt the reconsideration process was taking too long, because cases do not reach them until after reconsideration is completed. Setting a time limit will be one option before the Government at this stage, but a much simpler option might be not to have to do so, and instead simply to reinstate assessment rate ESA during that period. Indeed, that might be an incentive for the Government to speed up the process in any event.
	Finally, I return to another issue I have raised previously. In a debate on 9 April this year, I argued that, given that reconsideration is now mandatory and that, as a result, we might expect many more decisions to be overturned in that way, the DWP should now publish statistics on the number of successful reconsiderations—something that is currently done only for successful appeals. Successful reconsiderations are lumped in with original decisions, so it is impossible to tell exactly what has happened. If we do not have separate overturn figures for reconsiderations, that might make the performance of whichever contractor is involved—including a new contractor in future—more difficult to monitor and track.
	The Minister’s response at that time was that doing so would be premature, because mandatory reconsideration had only started in October 2013 and would need some time to take effect. However, it would appear that informal reconsideration has been taking place for some considerable time, even before the mandatory process was introduced. A previous Minister—I think it was the previous Minister but one—told the Work and Pensions Committee in March 2012 that the Department was
	“effectively putting every case that is going to appeal, or where a person is not happy with it, through a reconsideration where we look for additional evidence”.
	It would therefore appear that, as long ago as March 2012, reconsiderations were taking place in virtually every case that went to appeal. By this stage, therefore, we must have a considerable amount of management information—at least two years of reconsideration decisions—which could be published as official statistics in due course and which would give us an impression of what was happening.
	Although I have to go on what the Minister said on that occasion, that might or might not have been an entirely accurate reflection, given that in the same evidence session the same Minister told us that although there had been a slight backlog at that time because of the implementation of some of the Harrington recommendations, everything was back on track and by the summer—the summer of 2012—there would be no backlog of ESA assessments. Two years later, however, there are now apparently 700,000 people awaiting an assessment as new claimants.
	However, there is other evidence to suggest that the statistics are there to be captured and reported on. There appears to have been a reduction in the number
	of appeals. The most recent statistics on appeals—which were published just last week, on Thursday 12 June—appear to show a reduction in the rate of cases going to appeal, from around 42% to 43% up to mid-2011 to around 35% for claims begun in November 2012, with possibly a further reduction, to perhaps even as low as 25%, for cases started in March 2013. I say “possibly” because some of the March 2013 cases may well be still in the reconsideration process—indeed, they might even have barely got out of the assessment process, because of the backlogs.
	However, there appears to have been some change in the number of cases going all the way to appeal. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because we have all criticised the cost of appeals, the stress of appeals and the time taken. That is happening, and even though this may be in everyone’s best interests, we really need to know what is happening. The publication of statistics at the earliest possible opportunity, based on at least the last two years of experience, if not more, would enable us to judge the performance of the contractor far better. Given that we are going to have a new contractor for these assessments very soon, it would be good to have this in place well before that starts.
	In conclusion, will the Minister confirm when he expects statistics on successful reconsideration to be published, and will he reconsider his position on the statutory time limits? More than anything, I want to emphasise to him that many claimants who claim JSA in this situation are, in effect, being denied it. They are told that they are too fit for one benefit and too sick or disabled for another. Let me ask the Minister again: why not amend the law, so that ESA claimants can continue to receive the benefit at the assessment rate during the reconsideration process? The only way that could be more expensive for the Government would be if Ministers expected sick and disabled people to go without any benefit—and I am sure that that cannot be the case.

Anne Begg: As the previous debate wound up earlier than expected, I have the chance to say a few words on this subject.
	I do not think anyone is saying that a reconsideration process in deciding whether someone should receive a benefit is a bad thing. I do not think anyone would complain if it cut the number of appeals, caused less stress on the claimant, could be done very quickly—in less than a month—and benefits were secure during the process, but that is not what is happening. People are having to face very long delays before they get a decision the other side of the mandatory reconsideration and that is probably causing the most anxiety.
	On top of that, people are never very sure to which benefit they are entitled. Will the Minister confirm that we are talking not only about people who were on incapacity benefit and have been found to be fit enough for work and should therefore be on jobseeker’s allowance, and it is to that that the appeal applies, but about those who in the original assessment were awarded employment and support allowance in the work-related activity group and are appealing because they think that they should have been in the support group? In other words, someone has been found eligible for ESA, appeals to go into the support group but still has to go through the mandatory
	reconsideration, at which stage their benefit stops and they are expected to apply for JSA. I have heard anecdotal evidence from a number of different people that those who have gone through the mandatory reconsideration find themselves in the support group, so no longer need to visit a personal adviser in Jobcentre Plus. During the period of the mandatory reconsideration, however, they were expected to be signing on for JSA, but were so ill in the meantime—that is why they ended up in the support group—that they could not make the weekly signings, as a result of which they and their benefits have been sanctioned. I would like the Minister to clarify that position.
	The other problem is the interrelationship between the benefit someone receives and other benefits. Sometimes, a person undergoing the mandatory reconsideration who is not yet in payment of JSA might find that their housing benefit or council tax rebate has been stopped because the council has been told that they are no longer eligible for ESA, which they are not, but because of some of the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) they have not yet put in an active claim for JSA. As a result, their housing benefit might be disrupted, even though they are entitled to it on the basis of their overall household income. There should not have been a break in the claim, but that is not how the system works.
	If the changes could be made smoothly and very quickly, with the person being very clear about the benefits to which they are entitled and being able to remain on them without a break in the claim, the reconsideration might be acceptable. So far, however, that is so far from the reality of what is happening that it is no wonder that people are so anxious.

Julie Hilling: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about other anecdotal evidence that crops up all the time—about people who during this period of reconsideration and upheaval, end up taking their own lives, dying or making themselves much more ill? Financial worries are not the only ones at stake, because people’s health and lives can be put at risk, too.

Anne Begg: We know that people can get incredibly anxious about any kind of health assessment that they are put through. We know, too, that people are not only anxious at the time of the mandatory reconsideration; they will have been anxious much earlier, perhaps when they first received an ESA50 form through the door to fill in. That may be followed by the worry of the work capability assessment, after which they might be found fit for work when they do not think they are fit for work; and they may be put in the WRAG when they think that they are ill enough to be in the support group. There is a whole range of pinch points at which people feel extremely anxious.
	Let me give an anecdotal example. Two community psychiatric nurses came to see me in my surgery a few months ago. They were very concerned about their clients, whom they had fostered and helped, and who were almost reaching a stage at which they could start thinking about work and how they might return to the workplace. At that very point, however, the ESA50s dropped through the door, and their health suffered a setback.
	The nurses were particularly concerned about a very vulnerable group of people who found the whole process—which was not helped by all the publicity surrounding it—terrifying and worrying. The extra burden imposed by the mandatory reconsideration is yet another reason for the deterioration in people’s health as they go through that process. It is not a zero-sum game. A whole range of external forces can worsen the condition of people who are in ill health, who may have mental health problems, and whose condition may fluctuate. People can be made to feel very ill, and we know of cases in which the process of applying for ESA has been cited as the reason for suicides. That is a tragedy. I am not suggesting that mandatory reconsideration is entirely responsible for it, but it constitutes yet another pressure on people who are already vulnerable, already quite ill, and already finding it difficult to cope with illness or disability.
	I hope that the Minister will examine the process, and how it is working in practice. I cannot believe that the way in which it is working is the way in which he would like it to work. I am pretty sure that long delays, failures to reach a determination, and the fact that people may not know to which benefit they are entitled and may end up with nothing as a result—perhaps with huge rent arrears because of problems with housing benefit claims—are not part of the Minister’s plan, and I hope that, if they are not, he will be able to give us some idea of how he will improve the process.

Michael Penning: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on getting here this evening. I know that she was delayed on the train. I think it very important for a debate that is on the Order Paper following a Member’s success in the ballot to be heard: that is only right and proper. Actually, this is a bit like groundhog day. According to my file, this is the hon. Lady’s fifth debate on the subject. She said that it was the sixth; perhaps we missed one.
	I thank the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), for being present this evening. I am slightly concerned, because I said many of the things that I am about to say to her Committee only a few days ago. I hope that its members will pay attention to what I say, because during the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East I feared that the report might have already been written. I said openly and honestly that I wanted to do exactly what the Chair of the Committee said should be done—to make the process fairer, better and quicker, which I think is what we all want.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Penning: I should like to make some progress first, not least because I want to congratulate the hon. Lady a little more. We have plenty of time, after all—with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Minister is all heart.

Michael Penning: Perhaps, on that note—with all heart— I will give way.

Sheila Gilmore: May I just say, for the purpose of clarification, that any comments that I made about the Select Committee related to evidence that had been given in public? I was not in any sense referring to what the Committee would or would not recommend in due course, because we have not yet reached that stage.

Michael Penning: I was questioned extensively by the Committee about mandatory reconsideration delays, which are the subject of this evening’s debate. As you will probably have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I rarely speak from notes, but I shall try to stick to what I said during the Committee’s evidence sessions.
	There are two or three points I can make, but in some respects we will have to wait for the statistical analysis. I would love the data to be published now, but it is not ready. As soon as it is ready, I will publish it. As I said to the Select Committee recently, the statistics are being analysed and they will be published as soon as they become available.
	Mandatory reconsideration is being done in order to get decisions right—to give decision makers the opportunity to look at things and make sure we have got the decision right. If there is any new evidence, it can be brought forward at that stage. That, among other things, is clearly having an effect on the number of appeals going to the tribunals—although we do not know to what extent, as the statistical analysis has not yet been released—and I think that is a good thing. As I said to the Select Committee, if this means that fewer judges are employed handling tribunals, that is a good thing. I am not certain the judges feel that way, and some of the comments from some of the judges more recently may indicate that. However, it is important that tribunals are gone to as a last resort in order to make the judgment as to whether DWP officials and decision makers have made that final decision correctly to the best of their ability.
	If we can have fewer people going to appeal, that will be better. Appeals are dropping across the benefits handled by the Department, and especially those in respect of WCA. That is not solely due to mandatory reconsideration. There are about 80% fewer appeals, like for like.
	Have delays been caused as we brought in the process? I have been open and honest about that before, and the answer is yes, but I would rather have slightly more delays than have decisions incorrectly taken and then turned over at tribunal. The decision on the mandatory reconsideration was prompted in part because I had sat in on a tribunal hearing and so much evidence was being brought in on the day of the tribunal. Everybody has the right to do that, and judges certainly have the rights and powers to look at that evidence, but my decision makers and officials had had no opportunity to look at that evidence. It is very important that we get this right.
	At this stage in the process, the decision has been made that the person concerned is not going to get ESA. That is why we refer them across to JSA while the process is continuing.
	The hon. Lady quoted from the DWP guidance specifically on the 14-day question. She pointed this out:
	“The 14 day Temporary Periods of Sickness rule in JSA is in place to protect people from losing their entitlement when they
	have a short period of sickness. It was never intended to protect people with long term conditions.”
	The following bullet point is very important, however:
	“Claimants with longer term conditions can have their availability”—
	for work in this case—
	“restricted because of a physical or mental condition as long as the advisor thinks it is reasonable to do so”
	based on the information before them.

Sheila Gilmore: The guidance the Minister quotes is one thing, but there is clear evidence—not just from Citizens Advice Scotland and my advice surgeries and those of my colleagues, but from up and down the country—that people in this position are not being allowed to claim JSA. They are being told that, because of their unfitness for work and in order to keep to the conditions, they cannot receive that benefit and they are turned away. Can the Minister assure us he will make sure that will not happen?

Michael Penning: I will do everything I can, but I think it would have been right and proper for the hon. Lady to have gone on to say that there is specific guidance for people with long-term illness, as it is important to put that on the record. On the point she makes, I want all the staff in the DWP who have face-to-face contact with claimants and members of the public to have as much information as possible to make sure they can make the right decision. That is exactly why the guidance was changed in April. It was a decision that I made, and I asked my officials to make the change. I am not in any way saying that mistakes do not take place. We have a very large benefit with huge amounts of face-to-face contact across the board, whether it is in Jobcentre Plus or with officials in my own Department, and we make mistakes; no one could say otherwise. It would not make any difference who the Government were or who was standing here as Minister. I hope that they would all say, “We never get it perfect all of the time.” However, we should get as much of it right as we can and as often as we can, which is why mandatory reconsideration is vital to ensuring that the system works. As the hon. Lady and the Chair of the Select Committee said, when we are re-looking at a case and find that a person is entitled to benefit, we should ensure that their housing benefit and council tax benefit are not affected. All of that must join up together.
	Without a shadow of a doubt, we will work very hard to put in place the right training and guidance to ensure that the decision makers get things right. It is a big job, and I have only been here a short time, but we are getting there. As a Minister in the DWP, I am absolutely determined that we will ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely; that it goes to the people who need it; that we put in place training for the right people; that any delays that are taking place—and they are taking place—are brought to a minimum; that we get out statistics; and that we are open and honest with the public, which I will be if there is a debate again next week or the week after, and that will remain the case for as long as I am a Minister in the DWP.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.